|
Post by phaedron on Apr 1, 2012 17:35:46 GMT -8
(And Racism!) For those who don't know the very basic, most simple facts of the story: - A 17-year-old black kid named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012. - The shooter was identified by police as George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man. - Zimmerman admits to killing Martin, but claims he was acting in self-defense. - Martin was found by the police to be completely unarmed (unless you count a bag of skittles), and he had no criminal record. So what of it folks? Are we really living in a "post-racial America", as so many would have us believe? Or is it more realistic to believe that the election of Barack Obama has just polarized racist forces more than ever? I chose this particular case because Martin has been described by his teachers as a wonderful student, had no criminal record, and wasn't shot by a law enforcement officer. And yet, if you watch conservative television programs or listen to the radio, you'd be led to believe this kid was the antichrist, and that Zimmerman was protecting America from evil. Sourced, Referenced Evidence From the Trayvon Martin CaseWhat If Trayvon Martin Had Been White, And Zimmerman Black?How's that for taboo?
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 1, 2012 18:11:25 GMT -8
Not all is as the media would have you believe. Zimmerman is mixed heritage, hispanic. The media paints the scene as white vs. black, quite intentionally, to the point of calling him white-hispanic. As long as "white" is in there somewhere, as far as they're concerned. They harp on Zimmerman's prior record, and paint Martin as an angel on earth, with absolutely no mention of any trouble at school. While this case, a disgusting case in its own right of a group of black individuals who horribly tortured and killed a white couple, received absolutely no media attention whatsoever. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_NewsomThe next step is going to be to mutilate a law I believe is absolutely necessary to protect law abiding citizens when they are legitimately forced to defend themselves from harm: Stand Your Ground. Now with all that said, I do NOT believe Zimmerman was in the right in this case. Stand Your Ground is NOT intended to allow people to chase other people down and instigate confrontations. It is purely for self defense, and absolutely necessary in every state, I believe. Even with the debate going around about how Zimmerman was ultimately (allegedly) defending HIMSELF, and felt the need to shoot in self defense, he wouldn't have had to do so if he'd simply called 911, and NOT gone after Martin while he was connected with the dispatcher. Common sense should have dictated that if someone was acting suspiciously, and another person's life was NOT in immediate, imminent danger, there is no need to confront and certainly no need to brandish a weapon. This case, unfortunately, is likely going to screw up the Stand Your Ground law there in some form or other. And just as unfortunately, the media is trying its best to fan the flames of racial discrimination. It picks and chooses its love children (Obama), and its scapegoats (Zimmerman/Martin case in general). Nothing will be done to the Black Panthers who put the bounty out on Zimmerman's head, just like nothing was done to them years ago when they stalked around various polling stations with guns and clubs, with the specific intent to intimidate voters. The case stinks. Martin may not have been an angel, but he didn't deserve what he got. The media stinks. Zimmerman may well be a racist in his own right, but the media painting it as a typical example of white-against-black is just as wrong, and inciting further violence in its own right.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 1, 2012 18:59:51 GMT -8
Have you seen a picture of Zimmerman? He doesn't look any more Hispanic than he looks Italian. He's got slick-back black hair, and relatively fair skin. Even if he does consider himself Hispanic, that certainly doesn't make this situation not a racist killing by definition.
Zimmerman's also on record with the local police department as having called over 50 times in the past year, describing "suspicious" young black males in his neighborhood. One of those times, he actually described the "suspect" as looking about "8 or 9" years old. Is that not a pattern worth considering?
Martin wasn't an angel, because no one on this planet is an angel. He apparently smoked some pot a few times. The picture you showed of him in front of a webcam is certainly inflammatory though, and I've certainly already seen it on cable news. It's not like he was in a gang, or was ever known to participate in violent activity. So why do you say the media is depicting him as an angel? I mean, this has been a major topic on Fox News for weeks.
Zimmerman has actually gone to jail before. If Martin had been to jail before, would people be complaining about them showing him in a prison jumpsuit?
I respect that Randalla recognizes the logical fallacy in Zimmerman's argument that he had already called 911, and went out of his way to confront Martin.
But considering the level of vitriol I've seen in the media against Martin, you'd think he was committing a crime. That's where I'm confused, and that's where I see the racism... if this kid was white, I can't imagine them treating him as anything other than a victim.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 1, 2012 20:08:42 GMT -8
It's just all in the way the media paints the picture. If they wanted to be completely unbiased, they'd give as much information about one as they give about the other. They'd put it in fact form, instead of going out of their way to bring race into the picture to incite more race riots.
When this story first rolled out, that's all you ever saw from the media, was Martin's younger, more innocent looking pics, versus Zimmerman looking all scruffy and pathetic.
Facts are, the media picks and chooses. They're far from unbiased, no-spin reporting agencies no matter what they claim. Every last one of 'em, CNN and Fox alike. I don't know of a single non-biased news agency on earth.
I do believe Zimmerman needs his day in court for exercising some piss poor judgment in going after Martin in the first place. But if a jury doesn't convict Zimmerman (stranger things have happened--Casey Anthony anyone?), you think another Rodney King riot situation isn't going to develop?
And what about if Zimmerman was black, and Martin was white? Just like that horrible case I linked to in my previous post, I doubt you'd hear a word about it out of the media.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 1, 2012 21:15:01 GMT -8
Wow. Well done, both of you. I would still rather give the innocent until guilty to Zimmerman. We can't decide anything.
And I heard recently that a voice expert used advanced software to determine the voice on the phone recording was NOT Zimmerman. Don't remember the source, though. Sorry!
Please, continue. I'm quite interested!
On the side note: Obama has had plenty of opportunities to slow down racism and the racial divide in voters. Instead, he has SPECIFICALLY and deliberately put out ads to appeal to black voters. Why not just voters? Does he see color? It's all political hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 1, 2012 22:36:59 GMT -8
I've heard family members on both sides claim the voice calling for help is their kin. They can't both be right. And you're right about innocent until proven guilty--s'why I think this particular case is not a clear cut stand your ground case, and Zimmerman needs to have his day.
He should'a stayed in his car.
And about Obama playing the race card, of course he is. I know black and white voters alike who voted for him JUST because he's black, nevermind his message. I'd vote for black, white, blue, green, polka-dot, whatever, but I will not vote for a socialist of any race.
Democrat or not, he could BE a leader and a voice of reason in a case like this, and in other cases that have cropped up before this. He could use the fact that the people elected a black president as a unifying factor, not a divisive one. Instead, he does the opposite. He brings it up every chance he gets, tries to pin the race card on everyone who disagrees with him. He does nothing about the antics of the Black Panthers. He's using his race, alright, but for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 1, 2012 23:41:25 GMT -8
Max: And yet, Obama has refrained from mentioning race in any media outlets, ever since he called that white cop in Connecticut who harassed a black professor stupid. Dude NEEDS to be a non-racial president if he wants to have a chance at being re-elected. Black people 12.6% of the population. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity) -- why would any thinking person go after that demographic to the exclusion of others if they want to win a national election Max? Where's this literature he's distributing with racial overtones? Got a link? Rand: Every night I turn on the local news and hear "police say a young black male shot... " Come on now, to say that black people committing murder isn't in the news is a bit much. I'd have to try hard to avoid it. As for the specific case you mention, I don't remember it, but then again, I could mention a specific case in New Bedford, MA that you wouldn't have heard of either, you know? I think this specific case became sensationalized because of: 1) The police didn't arrest or even drug test Zimmerman after he killed another human being outside of his home. 2) Zimmerman had been on the record for a long time as having fears about young black males and calling 911 because of it. 3) While no angel, Martin was a good student with good grades and no criminal record. 4) The "Stand Your Ground" laws are still very controversial in at least half of the country. As for the chances of a race riot? We'll find out... I'm frankly worried that we've pacified the American people to the point where they won't riot over anything anymore. Personally, I think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder, but then again, I haven't seen all the facts yet. Truth is, noone has, because the police are only now just starting to actually do their job and investigate the potential crime. Dude deserves his day in court... but I'll be interested to see what the makeup of the jury looks like. You can't convict someone of murder with a split vote, last I checked. Rand?
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Apr 1, 2012 23:48:15 GMT -8
Unanimous. Otherwise hung jury, and it goes again.
Haven't clerked many trials yet. I've read one verdict so far, being as I'm a floater, not an assigned trial clerk. Jury selection will be a nightmare on this one, I'm sure. @.@
|
|
|
Post by queenelmo on Apr 2, 2012 6:55:59 GMT -8
Is it odd that I clicked on this purely because of the name?
|
|
|
Post by Kippa Tarxien on Apr 2, 2012 8:16:20 GMT -8
Is it odd that I clicked on this purely because of the name? We all have our hobbies ;D
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 2, 2012 11:30:02 GMT -8
A nice video, but attracts a specific racial group. And I think You Tube constitutes as a major media outlet as You Tube has more views than most media channels.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 2, 2012 18:08:12 GMT -8
You're completely right Max -- although remember, Youtube viewership is nearly half lolcats and nearly half videos of people getting hit in the nuts Considering there were "Women for McCain/Palin" and "Women for Hilary", having an "African Americans for Obama" makes just as much sense. You won't see a "White people for xxx" anywhere because well, we're still the majority in this country. It's implicit that we court those votes. I highly doubt it'll go any farther than some community organizing and a few youtube videos. If he goes "mainstream" with those messages, he's done for.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Apr 2, 2012 18:50:38 GMT -8
I would rather see no ads targets at specific groups. Although, I'm fine with them showing up to specific group functions. I know it seems the same, but if you can see the difference, then it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by BigKif on Apr 2, 2012 19:08:11 GMT -8
My impression is a nut-job going out of his way to start something.
That being said, I support the "Stand Your Ground" law. As a defensive measure, not offensive.
From his record, the guy(Zimmerman) seems like someone who shouldn't have had a conceal/carry permit. (Just assuming he did.)
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Apr 2, 2012 22:05:07 GMT -8
I'm with Kif: Why on earth do we let people with criminal records carry firearms? I mean, felons can't vote in most states... that's a right they don't have... why should they have the right to concealed weaponry? Also, yeah, nutjob seemingly... no one calls 911 over 50 times in a year unless they are just a bit paranoid, or are living in a abusive household or something. I would rather see no ads targets at specific groups. Although, I'm fine with them showing up to specific group functions. I know it seems the same, but if you can see the difference, then it makes sense. If no one else was doing it Max, I'd be right there with you. But since there's no law against it, and it seems to work, eh.... I can't fault them. Wouldn't be my tactic of choice though. That said, without any specific literature, I helped court the vote from artistic/musician, LGBTQ, and student groups in the 2010 election for a gubernatorial candidate... quite successfully I might add. Mostly just revolved around public statements of support for their issues (revitalization of old mills and factories to turn them into art and recording studios, gay marriage legalization, and a mixture of a reduction of the car tax and the decriminalization of weed for the students) -- all shit he was going to do anyway, but when they felt involved, they got out the vote
|
|