America's struggle for racial harmony: myth or reality?

[Udderdude]

Tray was ~158 pounds, which is a hair above "total weakling" for his height. Someone actually strong would have trouble cracking skulls this way - the lacerations are about the most damage he could have done with "ground and pound". To actually kill someone barehanded, you have to cut off their air or tapdance on their head

Even if Trayvon was only able to do a small amount of damage at a time, Zimmerman couldn't escape and was pinned down. Was he supposed to just sit there and take it to the face? Hope Trayvon got bored? Even if he was unable to kill, he could still have caused permanent injury.

[trap15]

He didn't have to KILL him... I'm pretty sure a gun shot in pretty much any part of the body would have gotten him off and stunned long enough for Zimmerman to get away.

[jonny5]

So he was following in his car when he spoke to the dispatcher, got out and followed on foot, and this is considered not following? Also, if you were walking home, and some dude is following you, would you feel threatened? I know you would.

The point is Zimmerman stopped following, and Trayvon came back to confront him. Zimmerman had completely lost sight of him by then. He couldn't have chased Trayvon even if he wanted to.

So Zimmerman was within his rights to investigate a suspicious character, but it was out of line for Trayvon to confront the guy following him home for blocks, in a car and then on foot? Seriously?

As for this ground and pound excuse, if a 6foot plus large dude is straddling you and slamming your head off the ground repeatedly, you are going to get a lot more than a couple scratches and a scuffed nose really fast and probably come out of it a bloody mess

If you google it, you'd see he looks pretty beat up and bloodied. Swelling, too.

Come on man, my g/f could have beat him up worse that that. That looks like savage beating getting his head slammed on the ground? Looks like he cut himself shaving for crying out loud. Not to mention he outweighed Trayvon by like 30lbs. Vicious ground and pound, can't get him off? That kind of weight difference, he was hardly helpless, and could have gotten him off pretty easily. This dude went to Police foundations training, and you are telling me he had no self defense training?

AND you are going to have a hell of a time pulling a piece and aiming it up at the dude who is currently slamming your head against the ground....unless of course he already had it out and that was how the confrontation started, ya know, defending yourself against an armed assailant that has been stalking you on your way home from the convenience store.

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, which is when he pulled it out and shot Trayvon. Unfortunately, it was raining at the time and the fingerprints on the gun were inconclusive.

There is no proof Zimmerman had his gun out beforehand or that he was chasing Trayvon after he was told to stop.

But according to Trayvon..... oh wait he got shot in the chest at point blank range on his way home from the convenience store.

And the whole thing could have been avoided if he hadn't gone looking for the confrontation. He called the cops, they said to wait and not approach. He chose to disregard those instructions

I just said in the previous post that's not correct .. it wasn't police, it was a 911 dispatcher, and he did stop following Trayvon after being told to, and started heading back to his car.

Here's the full transcript of the 911 call. http://www.motherjones.com/documents/32 ... -zimmerman

What does that even mean? When you call the police, who do you think you speak to, a patroling officer? Of course it was a dispatcher. You say they have no authority? They speak on behalf of the police. He was Neighbourhood Watch, meaning he had no authority aside from contacting police and waiting for their response. They simply conveyed the proper actions he should take, ie.) do nothing. He chose not to heed that and this kid died.

My biggest issue with this whole thing, in a confrontation, both sides are defending themselves from the other. So when one kills the other, sure it was self defense; but it would be the same thing the other way around. It makes no sense. It's basically a law that rules the person left standing was exercising their right to defend themselves; but what about the dead dude who was defending himself?

I don't understand how this kind of law makes sense to people, other than cowards and gun nuts. I went looking for a fight, and they put a beating on me, so I burned a hole in his ass. Seem justified? I can see in a situation where both sides are armed, then its a whole other ball game, but if only one side is armed, and they kill the unarmed, who was actually the threat?

[BryanM]

The requisite A Good Cartoon and Shittiest Editorial Cartoon Of The Moment. I... guess for those needing closure.

[MOSQUITO FIGHTER]

If he had a gun why didn't he just hold the kid up before he even started fighting him? Even if the kid jumped him before he could reach for the gun, Zimmerman could have just shot him in the knee or something instead. Using a taser, mace, baton, etc would have been more appropriate retaliation.

[Udderdude]

He didn't have to KILL him... I'm pretty sure a gun shot in pretty much any part of the body would have gotten him off and stunned long enough for Zimmerman to get away.

He was right on top of him, where else was he going to aim? A gunshot at that range might've been fatal regardless.

So Zimmerman was within his rights to investigate a suspicious character

As a member of the neighborhood watch, yes.

but it was out of line for Trayvon to confront the guy following him home for blocks, in a car and then on foot? Seriously?

Not out of line to confront him, but definitely out of line to assault him.

The prosecution already attempted to paint Zimmerman as an unhinged vigilante, and it didn't work there, so I don't know what makes you think it's going to work here.

Come on man, my g/f could have beat him up worse that that.

As I aluded to, even if he wasn't able to kill he could have injured him seriously if he kept going.

You also might want to include this one .. http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ap_geor ... _wblog.jpg

If he had a gun why didn't he just hold the kid up before he even started fighting him?

That would have definitely landed him in jail.

Even if the kid jumped him before he could reach for the gun, Zimmerman could have just shot him in the knee or something instead. Using a taser, mace, baton, etc would have been more appropriate retaliation.

Again, he was right on top of him and he could not aim for the legs or knees or whatever else. In addition, you're NEVER taught to aim for anything other than center of mass, and if you have to shoot, you shoot to kill. There's a lot of wierd ideas from movies and other entertainment that it's possible to easily hit someone in the legs or whatever and disable them, when the reality is not so much.

Your scenario of "He should have used mace" doesn't really work because he didn't have mace on him. Although he probably should have.

The requisite A Good Cartoon and Shittiest Editorial Cartoon Of The Moment. I... guess for those needing closure.

I don't get the first one, and the second one is so ridiculous it's not even worth commenting on.

It really seems there's two types of people in this thread .. those who followed the court case and all of the evidence and witnesses presented, and those who are going almost entirely on what the media reported back years ago .. which as I already pointed out was biased.

[jonny5]

Ahhh, did the gun toting wannabe cop get a bloody nose? Seems pretty justified in ending somebodies life for sure. That looks like it probably stung a bunch when they cleaned it up.

Wonder what a hollow point slug did to Trayvon's chest cavity at point blank range?

Not out of line to confront him, but definitely out of line to assault him.

If he had a gun pulled on him? Again, all based on Zimmerman's take on events. Obviously Trayvon doesn't have much to say on the matter.

The prosecution already attempted to paint Zimmerman as an unhinged vigilante, and it didn't work there, so I don't know what makes you think it's going to work here.

Because the jury didn't buy it doesn't mean it's not true. Guy denied knowing about the details of the law, but evidence showed he went to school for this shit and he DID know, quite well in fact. He had a history of reporting black males for being suspicious. He called police, the 'police dispatcher', told him not to pursue further, he says he didn't, but somehow he ends up in a confrontation with Trayvon. He says Trayvon attacked him. Seriously? The 160 lb kid tackled the 190lb guy to the ground and had his way with him just like that and this guy was helpless with no recourse but to blast him in half? Police Foundations training but not even basic self defense training like how to get an assailant off you in mount? Or perhaps how to avoid being taken down like a little girl by somebody 30lbs lighter than you?

Not a vigilante bigot with hero complex and a gun? Maybe if you are blind.

[Stormwatch]

It does rile me up when it's served in the Concern Troll format: "What's wrong with requiring photo ID to vote?"

You mean in the US&A one is allowed to vote without providing identification? Now that's fucked up.

[Udderdude]

If he had a gun pulled on him? Again, all based on Zimmerman's take on events. Obviously Trayvon doesn't have much to say on the matter.

So you're going to assume Zimmerman is lying and did pull his gun out? I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Of course as has been pointed out we can never know 100% of what happened, but the courts decided there was enough reasonable doubt to let him go.

I think if he had pulled his gun and Trayvon charged at him anyway, he would have been shot before even getting on top of Zimmerman.

Because the jury didn't buy it doesn't mean it's not true. Guy denied knowing about the details of the law, but evidence showed he went to school for this shit and he DID know, quite well in fact.

I can't find anything that says he had any training except for some basic MMA class he attended, and there was actually a witness (his trainer) during the court case that testified the guy couldn't fight for crap even after a year of training.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/08/z ... ally-soft/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-mma-tr ... rman-soft/

He had a history of reporting black males for being suspicious.

That is in itself not indicative of anything, because it doesn't tell us how many other people he called in as being suspicious or what their race was. And there were break-ins being reported in the area, it's not like there was zero crime happening and he was just calling people in.

In addition, FBI agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/1 ... ayvon.html

But if you want to play the "Character assassination" game, you aren't going to like what you see from Trayvon either.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-limits-text ... 51912.html

He called police, the 'police dispatcher', told him not to pursue further, he says he didn't, but somehow he ends up in a confrontation with Trayvon. He says Trayvon attacked him. Seriously?

Again, no proof. If you want to believe Zimmerman was chasing him around with his gun out until he assaulted the guy, you can, but nothing really supports that.

The 160 lb kid tackled the 190lb guy to the ground and had his way with him just like that and this guy was helpless with no recourse but to blast him in half? Police Foundations training but not even basic self defense training like how to get an assailant off you in mount? Or perhaps how to avoid being taken down like a little girl by somebody 30lbs lighter than you?

See the links I provided above related to his MMA training. He trained for a year and was still terrible at it.

About the only thing I can agree on is that he should have been carrying a non-lethal deterrant in addition to a gun.

[brentsg]

It really seems there's two types of people in this thread .. those who followed the court case and all of the evidence and witnesses presented, and those who are going almost entirely on what the media reported back years ago .. which as I already pointed out was biased.

I think there's a third type of person as well. It's entirely possible to have only loosely followed the trial, but to give the jury some benefit of the doubt. Further, there are plenty of legal scholars and such that have weighed in and said there really wasn't any other reasonable outcome.

This jury weeded through all of the evidence and testimony, including that from eye witnesses and experts. I don't understand the need to make wild speculative arguments based on a few media reports and thin air. Heck, I just went for lunch and listened to several radio folks irately quoting the old doctored 911 recordings that NBC whipped up early on.

[Udderdude]

I don't understand the need to make wild speculative arguments based on a few media reports and thin air.

Yeah, I think I'm just going to let this guy say it for me instead :

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... eflection/

[jonny5]

Oh, wait. Trayvon smoked weed? And got into fights? In highschool? Well guess he got what he deserved, that dirty no-good-nik.

By that reasoning it sounds like I am in dire need of a hole through my chest.

Oh well, I'm done with this thread. I wasn't even going to post, and then I got heated.

Agree to disagree I guess. We cool bro?

[BryanM]

Reading Rainbow had things to say a few weeks ago for those who missed it.

For a briefing on the cancer of 1st world problems and the fun world we have to look forward to, always look to colony collapse in mice. Japan already has deaths outpacing births, last year the white Demo was -15,000 when it came to indigenous growth, and the other demographics will join them in the future as they integrate and age-in.

"Misanthropic event horizen" is the best term I've been able to come up with so far.

Oh, and if anyone wants to watch a documentary about post civil war slavery.

As for the media, long ago The Onion became real news and Real News became the onion. At least as far back as 2001. These guys don't feel like working, so glomming onto a trial livefeed and downing some chocolate chip cookies while technology fills time for them is to be expected. Not everyone can be PBS - it costs money to send someone over to Egypt to see wtf is going on.

[brentsg]

I tried to google a couple of things and clicked on a "hit". It was a white supremacist forum.

I'm sure the Feds have added this to my file.

[Udderdude]

I tried to google a couple of things and clicked on a "hit". It was a white supremacist forum.

It's unfortunate those types got involved, but with a case this widespread and this much misinformation floating around, it was inevitable.

Oh, wait. Trayvon smoked weed? And got into fights? In highschool? Well guess he got what he deserved, that dirty no-good-nik.

I don't think being a dumb teenager is worthy of death either, but you're the one that started up with the character assassination angle. Also, the "Got into fights" part might be a bit more relevant than you're letting on.

Zimmerman may have been morally in the wrong for following Trayvon even for a short time, but Trayvon was definitely wrong for doubling back (away from his dad's house which he was almost at) and attacking the guy.

Agree to disagree I guess. We cool bro?

As long as you don't get too emotionally invested in this, there's not a problem with a debate, even if it's heated.

[Udderdude]

For a briefing on the cancer of 1st world problems and the fun world we have to look forward to, always look to colony collapse in mice. Japan already has deaths outpacing births, last year the white Demo was -15,000 when it came to indigenous growth, and the other demographics will join them in the future as they integrate and age-in.

"Misanthropic event horizen" is the best term I've been able to come up with so far.

I don't see what this has to do with anything in this thread .. or if it even applies to large scale human populations. And yeah I have seen this study before. It's interesting to say the least.

[BryanM]

I don't see what this has to do with anything in this thread ..

It might holistically be relevant to the radicalization of hate groups; the "demographic winter" and the (right's) attitude about our president. (Who always seems oddly out of place as trying to pose himself as the rational guy in a country full of insane people.) "Losing our country" and all that. Out of a job and out of a role thanks to outsourcing/automation, take it out on some other mice instead of the guy running things.

But ye, it is my desperate attempt at sabotage to nudge things away from the Team Edward/Team Bella stuff.

[Udderdude]

I don't disagree that the whole media circus around this case has been a convinent way to shove other, more important news under the rug. Let's just forget about that whole Snowden and NSA business, shall we?

In any case, here's a good write-up and summary of the court case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/in ... d=all&_r=0

And here's a whole buttload of stuff on the court case that I doubt anyone will bother to read all of!

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cf ... eline.html

[GaijinPunch]

Nobody that investigated this case from A to B thought there was any evidence to support a conviction. They buckled to public and media pressure to charge him and the prosecution had jack shit, so he was acquited.

He got out of his car and shot an unarmed person (I won't even say kid) after 911 told him to stay in the fucking car. If you're going to pack heat, sorry, you need to pull your head out of your fucking ass. This is my complaint about our lax gun laws. Most people are idiots, thus, shouldn't have them.

However, let's stay on topic. The question is about the racial implications. If it was flipped, the black guy would go to jail... I think we could statistically prove that.

Neighborhood watch... it was his job to question him

It was? Is that really his job? Not to call someone with actual authority and not street authority? The kid probably had every right to say, "go fuck yourself" which I probably would have done if anyone tried to stop me at night, and didn't say, "I'm a police officer". I actually got "randomly" searched by two security guards at a festival in good old US of A recently. They asked if they could search my bag. I thought about exercising my rights (and probably getting ejected, and maybe even having to talk to an officer) but I wound up letting them do it as I wasn't packing, and had some other reasons. Thankfully they didn't throw anything in there. They were both black though, so I probably could've just said they planted it on me and they go to jail.

Racial shit set aside, this has set some pretty awful precedence. I feel gun sale rises to rise more.

[jonny5]

OK, I know I said I was done, but I isn't.

Not to be inflammatory at all, but can somebody explain to me on what level this 'stand your ground' law makes sense?

My understanding is, if you are in a situation where you kill somebody, this law makes it so it's no longer about proving that person actually killed them, but proving, without a shadow of a doubt, they weren't acting in self defense, even if they could have escaped the situation altogether, and apparently, if the other party is unarmed. Right?

How does that even work? Take this case as an obvious example; nobody could really definitively say exactly what happened except Trayvon and Zimmerman. Problem is, Trayvon is dead at this point. So how do you prove somebodies state of mind when you only have one side of the story?

I think, above all else, this is what bothers me the most about this whole thing; if this had happened in a state without this ludicrous law, dude would be done for manslaughter at the least, but because Florida has it, he walks free, and this 17 year old loses his life over a situation that never should have happened, and the state of Florida basically just co-signed that shit.

Am I the only one absolutely flabbergasted by this?

[louisg]

How does that even work? Take this case as an obvious example; nobody could really definitively say exactly what happened except Trayvon and Zimmerman. Problem is, Trayvon is dead at this point. So how do you prove somebodies state of mind when you only have one side of the story?

I think, above all else, this is what bothers me the most about this whole thing; if this had happened in a state without this ludicrous law, dude would be done for manslaughter at the least, but because Florida has it, he walks free, and this 17 year old loses his life over a situation that never should have happened, and the state of Florida basically just co-signed that shit.

Am I the only one absolutely flabbergasted by this?

I think the fact that Zimmerman received wounds and claimed self-defense I think means that it's on the prosecution to prove that wasn't in fact the case. My legal knowledge isn't awesome, but I think in most other states you have a duty to retreat. Here are some Wikipedia articles that look decent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Basically, I think it's castle doctrine/duty-to-retreat are there so that you can't just assault someone anywhere and claim self-defense.

But no, you're not the only one flabbergasted. It's absolutely sickening. Though it sounds to me like, in addition to the jury being made up of several people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, this is what happens when the defense totally cocks up a case.

[BryanM]

Approval for interracial marriage is up to ~86%, compared to the 4% support it had in the 60's. So... we are getting there.

Atwater's soliloquy about how abstract racism is at least some kind of sign of its power diminishing is some kind of small comfort that ~20% of any population will always be crazy as balls.

Not to be inflammatory at all, but can somebody explain to me on what level this 'stand your ground' law makes sense?

ALEC writes a large percentage of our laws. Basically the NRA directly instituted the thing.

It's a plutocracy but what can you do. Put PBS in charge of the country?

[jonny5]

See that's just it, though.

I can totally understand if this happened in your home or on your property and the assailant was armed, but when it is on somebody else's lawn, and you had no business being there in the first place(neighbourhood watch), and the other party was unarmed, how does this excuse fly? How can you justify lethal force when you willfully put yourself in that situation and the other party is not armed, especially considering the only reason he was even willing to confront anybody was because he had a gun? Simply because you have a gun you are enabled by the law to take it up a notch and end the confrontation definitively, even if you could have easily escaped the situation, or not caused it in the first place?

And please don't point to those superficial wounds. I've taken worse lumps in fights I won!

This is what has me shaking my head. I will concede, with this law, with what had to be proven to get a conviction, fuck ups or not, how could they reasonably expect to get a conviction? But without it, its cut and dry.

I honestly don't get the mindset that must be involved to approve of this kind of law, or that it was justice served in this case.

[brentsg]

I don't see how the stand your ground law is even all that important here.

If you're required to retreat before using lethal force for defense, he probably met that requirement. According to eye witnesses, he was basically on his back getting his head bashed into the pavement. That is going to meet most any self defense criteria, when boiled down to just that.

[Udderdude]

Indeed, stand your ground was not even used in the defense's case, if you clicked on the court case summary I linked you'd see ..

Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground. Ultimately it was not part of Mr. O’Mara’s courtroom strategy

[jonny5]

But let's look at this from Trayvon's point of view for moment, and put race aside. I was a head strong marijuana smoking scrapper at 17 too(still am to a lesser degree ), so I think I can relate.

Imagine for a second you are 17, walking home from the store, and you are all like 'WTF, I think that dude in the car is following me'. Couple blocks, 'yup, that dude is definitely following me!'. Pick up the pace, perhaps cut some houses, gotta get home; hard headed but still young enough to get scared when you are being followed by some dude in a car. Not a cop.

Get a bit farther, 'WTF, now he's on foot!' Double back and hide. He rolls up where you are at, jump out 'why you following me?'. Dude plays hard. Shows his piece and tells you not to move.

I don't know about you, but at 17 I would have been shitting my pants!! Cops don't stalk you in unmarked cars and pull guns on you in plain clothes without saying they are cops; crooks do. No wonder he 'allegedly' rushed the dude and took him down and was bashing his head off the ground; he thought he was fighting for his life. Trying to bash somebodies head off the ground is not the go to move of people trying to scrap; that is panic. He was just trying to beat this guy until he couldn't use his gun on him.

Sadly, it didn't work out. That kid died terrified. And this guy gets off. Lunacy!

Sure, it's all just speculation, but in my book, this sounds a lot more plausible. Smoking weed and getting into fights at that age does not a badman make. Everybody smokes pot at that age, look at the stats. Fights? Just means he wasn't a pussy and a bit to headstrong to walk away.

This guy was an armed adult that needed to gun down a 160lb 17 year old to 'protect his life', after creating the whole confrontation.

Sickening!

EDIT: WAIT!! If they didn't use that, how in the fuck did he get off? He killed the kid! Damn you and your links udderdude! My indignant rage is powerless against your facts I failed to read.

[brentsg]

if you clicked on the court case summary I linked you'd see ..

Steam's Summer Sale is on and there are only so many hours in the day..

[Ed Oscuro]

It seems that the evidence didn't reach the standard for "not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt" (to quote defense attorney O'Mara's chart from closing arguments). At the same time, it's quite obvious that Zimmerman probably lied at multiple points and was profiling Martin as a likely criminal, that Martin also had a plainly obvious self-defense case to beat or even kill the guy stalking around after him (I can only hope that if the outcome had been reversed that Martin would have been acquitted as well), although there is the critically important consideration that just having somebody stalk you and speak to you angrily is not an invitation to you to beat them - unfortunately as a youth Trayvon may well have reacted badly, but I think many other people would have found it hard to resist the fight or flight response. At some point you're dealing with just basic physiology and a very thin thread of civilized self-restraint. Most importantly I think it's plainly obvious that Zimmerman acted exceptionally carelessly - but alone isn't enough to get a murder conviction, and that's fine.

Zimmerman gets himself into a spot where the only thing he can rely on for self-defense is his handgun, when he had the police on the line and could have stayed in his SUV, or even just walked away with no problem. This is different than the "I keep it for close encounters" rationale for keeping a handgun; obviously, if you're suddenly assaulted by a huge person who you would normally have no chance of beating, then having the handgun as an equalizer is fine. The difference here is largely intent, but compare this to having a convenience store robber get charged with murder when the clerk shoots the criminal's partner in crime, on the theory that the surviving criminal is responsible for starting the situation.

I also find it problematic that there's no way of telling between these two cases, to hear how the arguments went down in the case (the defense did not bring up "stand your ground" laws):

Frank sees somebody acting suspiciously, confronts them, and ends up shooting them.
Tom sets out hoping he can shoot somebody, and he knows that if he is the survivor in the conflict that there won't be any conflicting evidence. He can threaten to kill them
Of course there also could be a "true self defense" case, if you have Pete who goes up to somebody and asks them a question, and they recklessly attack Pete, who happens to have a handgun. Obviously in that case you won't blame Pete - and doubtlessly a jury would not blame Pete, either.

I don't know how to conform these cases except to say that intent is important, but so is doing your reasonable bit to prevent escalating a conflict to the point where violence will be necessary.

[GaijinPunch]

Here's a must see.
Summed up in 4 minutes.

Still on topic:
Can anyone tell me what rights/responsibilities the neighborhood watch actually has? These guys seem no more than un-uniformed jackasses like The Guardian Angels who have absolutely no authority. The cops are always going on about telling people to let them do their job. At least the 911 operator tried to convey that. Too bad Zimmerman didn't listen.

I'll also further play devil's advocate: How much of this chasing, questioning, "patrolling" would he have done had he been unarmed?

[Ed Oscuro]

Very true. Some of the good folk on The Truth About Guns have been assassinating Martin's case with glee.

During the trial the defense attempted to use the possibility of Martin having marijuana in his system as evidence that he would have been more likely to attack Zimmerman, and expert commentators even had to state that the drug can have "different effects on different people." I don't believe the jury gave this thought much consideration.