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

[Skykid]

I'd create a poll, but dems be broke.

So that pasty white motherfucker who shot that black teenage boy has been acquitted on grounds of self-defence, and today protesters are blazing a few trails cross state. Obama's all like "Calm down, you got me didn't you? How many miracles you want?" while cops are firing rubber bullets at seething crowds.

So question: if it was a black guy who shot a white guy, would he have got life? Does America still have a long way to go before racial harmony can ever be achieved (or maybe it never will?)

Shorthand: Is America still racially prejudiced as fuck, or is it that Zimmerman was genuinely acting in self-defense and the jury called it to the letter?

You lot are American, do you feel racism is still a prevalent issue. Maybe you dislike coloured folk but feel you have a justifiable reason? Maybe you dislike people who dislike coloured folk and feel you have a justifiable reason?

Let's get some candid discussion (without offensive slurs plz) and put Zimmerman back on armchair trial.

[trap15]

So question: if it was a black guy who shot a white guy, would he have got life? Does America still have a long way to go before racial harmony can ever be achieved (or maybe it never will?)

There really is no question about it. I'm 100% sure that if it was the other way around in the exact same circumstances, the black guy would get life. There is even data to back this up for Florida at least; out of cases that used the 'self-defense' law, the chances of being acquitted were significantly higher for whites than blacks, and even lower when it was black on white.

Shorthand: Is America still racially prejudiced as fuck, or is it that Zimmerman was genuinely acting in self-defense and the jury called it to the letter?

Very much still prejudiced, especially in the south-east, mmmm, quarter? third? of the country.

[Skykid]

Is it historical deep rooted prejudice then, from all those slavery and lynching days, or is it justifiable in some way?

Personally I consider it to be an issue of social pigeonholing. One thing I do know is Americans don't mind black guys in movies. It was so a thing in the 80's.

[gabe]

Is it historical deep rooted prejudice then, from all those slavery and lynching days, or is it justifiable in some way?

Definitely a deep rooted prejudice, unfortunately. Not justifiable at all. It's disgusting.

One thing I do know is Americans don't mind black guys in movies. It was so a thing in the 80's.

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaxploitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism

[Vyxx]

Unfortunately we will never see true acceptance without prejudice but things are moving forward..... just very, very slowly.

Not to turn this into a religious debate, but I'm sure the lower states still being so rooted in Christian fantasy doesn't help.

[Skykid]

I'm just wondering what all this says about the justice system. Something along the lines of if you're white, don't sweat it, we got your back. If you're black/Asian/hispanic/other, be very afraid, you're in no-mans land.

Being in China, which is almost exactly the same size as the US to the square kilometer, it's quite interesting to see one country that's pretty much totally racially singular (as long as you discount the various ethnic groups categorised by region) versus the US's extreme multicultural landscape.

It's curious that after so many years of having an open door to foreign settlers there's still such a great deal of tension. Maybe it's just an aversion to certain colours.

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaxploitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism

That's some interesting reading. I never figured Obama as a magical Negro, but I guess he fits the bill.

[brentsg]

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.

The shooter would be considered Hispanic under almost all circumstances, except when the media needs a white dude, so now he's "white hispanic". Minorities like Obama, so he's just black and not "white black".

There are a lot of people following the trial that have leaned on the media for "facts" on the case, and many are either failing to use scepticism.. Or they are simply picking and choosing data to fit their agenda.

Remember, the media drove this and they at times even doctored evidence and flat out lied to make this seem more outragrous. They like a good story even if it's not true. And hey, now with the backlash here they have manufactured more stories.

None of this answers your question, but I think this case was used and made into something it wasn't. If it wasn't a minority victim, I don't think it ever makes the news or results in charges. Same with black on black, but same otherwise. I actually have a friend that was involved in a case like this. He's white, the other dude was minority. My friend got into a good old fashioned street fight after some drinking and such. He's laying it on minority guy until a weapon is used and he's left bleeding out. He survived, barely but with significant permanent damage. The trial went down just like this, not guilty due to self defense. So no, it didn't matter that the victim was white.

[Mortificator]

The shooting and the verdict are both revolting, but racism is only half the story. The other major factor is that a lot the people who own guns do so as a shortcut to feeling strong and important. It's not even a silly yet heroic fantasy like facing down Wild Dog to save the world that these individuals hold in their hearts, but of shooting someone unarmed (preferably in the back) in order to keep their property. This line of thinking lead to the creation of the stand-your-ground law in Florida and fueled contributions to Zimmerman's defense fund.

[Udderdude]

Is America still racially prejudiced as fuck, or is it that Zimmerman was genuinely acting in self-defense and the jury called it to the letter?

Both are true.

[Mortificator]

Instigating a fight and then whipping out a gun when you lose is not self-defense.

[Udderdude]

Harvard law professor weighs in. Unless you think you know better than this guy ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953

[brentsg]

Instigating a fight and then whipping out a gun when you lose is not self-defense.

Following someone isn't instigating a fight. Instigating a fight is instigating a fight.

And you may not like it, but if you're getting your ass handed to you and you fear for your life then using a weapon is justified. It doesn't matter what color you are.

[Skykid]

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.

The shooter would be considered Hispanic under almost all circumstances, except when the media needs a white dude, so now he's "white hispanic". Minorities like Obama, so he's just black and not "white black".

There are a lot of people following the trial that have leaned on the media for "facts" on the case, and many are either failing to use scepticism.. Or they are simply picking and choosing data to fit their agenda.

Remember, the media drove this and they at times even doctored evidence and flat out lied to make this seem more outragrous. They like a good story even if it's not true. And hey, now with the backlash here they have manufactured more stories.

None of this answers your question, but I think this case was used and made into something it wasn't. If it wasn't a minority victim, I don't think it ever makes the news or results in charges. Same with black on black, but same otherwise.

All of this makes some sense to me. I'll admit that when I heard the verdict, I did entertain the possibility that since newscorp.globe does enjoy a good wind up, racial or otherwise, that it was a happening exacerbated beyond realistic proportions. I also entertained the idea, based on the above, that perhaps Zimmerman in thick-as-shit vigilante mode bit off a bit more than he could chew, tempted fate, and actually was assaulted by Trayvon (he may be young, but not too young to kick a fat white guy's ass for breathing down his neck.)

Shooting people just isn't cool in my book, unless you have the best reason evar, but since there's little to go on except some guy screaming for help on a lousy phone call recording, I'm open to the possibility that the truth could go either way.

I'm also open to the possibility that the jury weren't a bunch of blind racists, considered the evidence, and did their jobs properly and impartially. If they didn't, however... well weirder shit has happened. Let's not forget OJ brutally murdered a couple of dudes and walked.

[Udderdude]

The media manipulation was well documented .. the jury was entirely impartial and thus not affected by this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... _Zimmerman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... -nbc-news/

[brentsg]

Let's not forget that the star witness might have done more harm than good, from the prosecution's case. And they didn't have a lot to work with to begin with.

Of course none of this glosses over the fact that Zimmerman was a dumbass. He definitely got himself in over his head.

I just keep reading so many inflamed opinions and it's clear that their expectations were way out of line given the evidence.

[Skykid]

^ I agree with all of this, and the Harvard Prof is making sense.

But then, assuming the verdict correct, if we were to completely reverse the races in an identical scenario, the black guy would still get life, right?

[Udderdude]

Assuming an impartial, unbiased jury, no.

What would have changed is that it wouldn't have turned into a giant media circus.

[trap15]

It's hard to say if the jury really were racially unbiased here. People can be subconsciously racist and not really be aware. It's a well known phenomenon. If given the exact same situation, but just altering the races, the decision could certainly change. Similar forces have been noted in gender equality in the work-place.

[BryanM]

So question: if it was a black guy who shot a white guy, would he have got life?

In the armchair phase we pull all the old cases out of the closet to shake our fists at Injustice Everywhere. The most popular one is Trevor Dooley, who had two bullet points against him:

* Getting choked, while actually being a threat to your life, is not as graphic in photographs as superficial flesh wounds are. Images sell a lot of weight to whoever's story is being served. (What comes to mind on that front is the guy convicted because his daughter had a clouting disorder.)

* Being tan.

He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter, and is at his house waiting for his appeal.

Does America still have a long way to go before racial harmony can ever be achieved (or maybe it never will?)

I think the 80's has done a lot to rend asunder the old attitudes. The abolition of slavery was in the 1950's; those people will begin to cark it in a couple decades, and their children a couple decades after that. We may be hundreds of years behind some places, but we'll get there.

I also blame Sesame Street for accelerating our progress somewhat.

You lot are American, do you feel racism is still a prevalent issue.... Maybe you dislike people who dislike coloured folk and feel you have a justifiable reason?

Yeah, it really is. MasterRace.txt on the internet (say, with the extreme fixation on Muslim terrorists when white liberal OR conservative terrorists commit more attacks. It's like Timothy McVeigh never existed), laws enacted to disenfranchise tan people to keep the GOP puttering along for a few more years, the biased justice system...

It does rile me up when it's served in the Concern Troll format: "What's wrong with requiring photo ID to vote?" Such a person is subhuman, worse than the guys posting "Obama is a monkey" jpg's.

The terror over Romneycare is also ridiculous. If it's successful and makes people's lives even a little less shitty? You know what that means? Obama really is made of magic.

Also we have an entire major political party that is entirely tribal. It's as sensical as a party that's made up entirely of Mexican atheists, or Asians who like Harry Potter.

But then, assuming the verdict correct, if we were to completely reverse the races in an identical scenario, the black guy would still get life, right?

I think there would have been an actual chance of him getting manslaughter.

The only thing constructive to learn from all this is you should choke someone and not scratch up their head if you want to win your case after being killed in Florida.

[jonny5]

Instigating a fight and then whipping out a gun when you lose is not self-defense.

This is what I don't get. Dude was just going home, the only thing 'suspicious' was the fact that this Zimmerman guy didn't think he belonged there, and proceeded to follow him and confront him, despite police telling him to do the opposite. If you are not doing anything wrong, you don't even have an obligation to talk to the police, let alone a private citizen with no authority over you. If some dude walked up to me on the street and demanded I tell him what I was doing, I'd tell him to get fucked. If he pressed the issue or made it a physical issue, I'd drop him, no questions asked. In my eyes, I am defending myself.

All race issues aside, that is what troubles me the most about these 'stand your ground' laws. It's basically a free card to kill somebody, regardless of how the altercation started. Like if I walked up to some dude in Florida, started talking shit, they take a swing and 'I feel threatened' I am now justified to end them with all force at my disposal, even if they are unarmed and I caused the altercation? I don't see how you can be the instigator and claim self defense.

No disrespect to our American neighbours, but that's some pussy shit right there!

[Skykid]

Assuming an impartial, unbiased jury, no.

Well it goes back to the inherent prejudice question. The primary issue in this case is a lack of evidence about what went down. An impartial, unbiased jury could possibly still find their way to a state of not being entirely sure, but given the track record for African American shootings the black guy probably just killed the white chap in cold blood.

[KAI]

It's the same everywhere, the minorities always get the worst part.

[Udderdude]

Trevor Dooley

This guy flashed his gun off, which is probably what lead to the manslaughter charge. Yeah he turned around after, but how was the other guy going to be sure he wasn't backing off so he could shoot him from a distance? Im comparison, at no point did Zimmerman reveal his gun until Trayvon was already on top of him beating his head into the pavement.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civ ... er/1270967

[jonny5]

They should change it from 'stand your ground' to ' last man standing', because that is basically how it works out apparently. "I thought he was going to kill me, so I killed him". Kind of hard for the dead guy to refute your story. What would have happened if Zimmerman pulled the piece on Trayvon, Trayvon 'feared for his life', managed to wrestle the gun away and shoot Zimmerman? He was simply "standing his ground' against a perceived attacker, who happened to be armed with a hand cannon, while he was unarmed.

'Merica....nice to visit occasionally, but no fucking way would I live there!

[Udderdude]

Dude was just going home, the only thing 'suspicious' was the fact that this Zimmerman guy didn't think he belonged there, and proceeded to follow him and confront him

Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch, at the time it was his job to do so. In addition there had been a recent string of burlgaries in the area involving teenagers, and Trayvon was walking between houses.

despite police telling him to do the opposite.

It wasn't the police, it was a 911 dispatcher, who has no legal authority. And when the dispatcher told him to stop following, he did stop.

If you are not doing anything wrong, you don't even have an obligation to talk to the police, let alone a private citizen with no authority over you. If some dude walked up to me on the street and demanded I tell him what I was doing, I'd tell him to get fucked.

That's not what happened according to Zimmerman. Unless you're willing to claim he's outright lying, he was assaulted by Trayvon after he stopped following him. Every witness in the court case, even the witnesses the Prosecution brought up, backed up Zimmerman's version of the events.

All race issues aside, that is what troubles me the most about these 'stand your ground' laws. It's basically a free card to kill somebody, regardless of how the altercation started. Like if I walked up to some dude in Florida, started talking shit, they take a swing and 'I feel threatened' I am now justified to end them with all force at my disposal, even if they are unarmed and I caused the altercation? I don't see how you can be the instigator and claim self defense.

The law could definitely use reform to be changed from "feels threatened" to "would definitely have recieved substantial injury".

But in this case it was used properly, as Trayvon could easily have caused serious injury to Zimmerman by slamming his head into the pavement repeatedly in a ground-and-pound position. You know this isn't a position you want to be in!

[BryanM]

That's not what happened according to Zimmerman. Unless you're willing to claim he's outright lying, he was assaulted by Trayvon after he stopped following him. Every witness in the court case, even the witnesses the Prosecution brought up, backed up Zimmerman's version of the events.

They backed up that he lost a fight. Nobody saw the beginning of the fight.

Taking George at his word is what the jury had to do. The rest of us have to accept we'll never really know what happened.

[Udderdude]

I think they could have got him on negligent homicide charges. But the prosecution vastly overreached, and this is the result.

[jonny5]

If you are not doing anything wrong, you don't even have an obligation to talk to the police, let alone a private citizen with no authority over you. If some dude walked up to me on the street and demanded I tell him what I was doing, I'd tell him to get fucked.

That's not what happened according to Zimmerman. Unless you're willing to claim he's outright lying, he was assaulted by Trayvon after he stopped following him. Every witness in the court case, even the witnesses the Prosecution brought up, backed up Zimmerman's version of the events.

All race issues aside, that is what troubles me the most about these 'stand your ground' laws. It's basically a free card to kill somebody, regardless of how the altercation started. Like if I walked up to some dude in Florida, started talking shit, they take a swing and 'I feel threatened' I am now justified to end them with all force at my disposal, even if they are unarmed and I caused the altercation? I don't see how you can be the instigator and claim self defense.

The law could definitely use reform to be changed from "feels threatened" to "would definitely have recieved substantial injury".

But in this case it was used properly, as Trayvon could easily have caused serious injury to Zimmerman by slamming his head into the pavement repeatedly in a ground-and-pound position. You know this isn't a position you want to be in!

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.

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, which he didn't, 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.

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 and this kid was killed because of it. Justify it however you want, he made this happen through his actions and choices. The fact that the law seems to back him up is the most troubling part of all of this.

[Udderdude]

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.

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.

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.

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

[BryanM]

The lesser included charges, such as manslaughter, came automatically with murder 2. The prosecution did the best they could - if there weren't visible flesh wounds, and the girl on the phone's story was more "clean and articulate", things might have gone differently.

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, which he didn't, 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.

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 like in Josie's case.

It's entirely possible the encounter started with the weapon in hand - but that's the bitter fanciful game of what-could-have-happened. Don't like playing it, since that's what the Ann Coulters of the world do, and being better than Them is all I have : /