Zimmerman Martin Case

All I took from that is consumerism, rap music, lack of critical thinking education and political apathy were somehow responsible for Martin getting shot?

edit: What I mean is that that read more like a rant against what he sees as moral degridation in society more than anything
 
I think the article is misguided and I could type up a lot about it but what it essentially comes down to is that I think there is a cultural double standard when it comes to black people. Yes, violence, drug usage and misogyny features prominently in rap. It's also present in rock, metal, blues, pop, and other musical genres.

I may be misreading, but Malco seems to be saying that it is this perception of black youth that caused the shooting and without changing this perception, Martin's death will be in vain. I don't think that we'd level a similar charge against a white teenager who spent his time listening to Pantera or Slayer. Lennon's violence against his wife, Zeppelin's philanderings with women, Lou Reed's drug usage, etc., etc. for some reason do not become identifiers of white culture, or justifications for crimes perpetuated against white people, whereas Chris Brown's abhorrent violence against Rihanna is used in that manner.

I don't think that the answer to institutional racism is for blacks to change their culture. That culture is an organic result of the social and economic conditions that it was raised in and its issues are symptomatic of the problems people face within those conditions. But yeah, Chris Brown is still an utter, oh hi Frodocious, didn't see you browsing there.
 
No argument there, anybody can be racist, and probably most people are, to a point. That doesn't mean we can't change, but as long as it is profitable for pundits and media then there won't be a change anytime soon.
 
You're going on about saying you want me to say something intelligent and enlightening in order to acknowledge anything I say but you're reverting to ad hominem the more we get into discussion about the subject. Are you trying to bait me or are you just so emotionally involved in the subject you don't see it?

Nothing I've posted in the last page or so has had anything to do with the Zimmerman/Martin thread we are in. If anyone is replying to me with the scope of the thread in mind you should know that. If you would like to bring up something for discussion about race and anything you think I believe in Please Reality, we can certainly resurrect the thread you keep bringing up to make comments about my character and discuss it there.
 
Mitlov -"In the area around you, that slice of society is predominantly black, so you feel that those sorts of crimes are "black" crimes, but around here that demographic group is predominantly white and they do exactly the same stuff."

Actually the area I live in is predominantly white, and yes whites commit crimes all the time.
 
That doesn't justify that Zimmerman's actions alone are what triggered the following series of events. Trayvon Martin's history at this point was irrelevant as he wasn't breaking the law by just walking around.
 
And Zimmerman wasn't breaking any law by following him

This is one of those "perfect storm" scenarios that no matter how much I look at it - and I have a LOT over the last few days - I cannot find any explanation beyond a tragic confluence of circumstances. My initial stance was flawed and i took time to deucate myself on teh nuances fo the case. If one or other variable were changed it would have had a very different outcome than the tragic one it did
 
Just because a stereotype has survived for centuries, doesn't mean it's accurate. The portrayal of Jews secretly controlling banks, government, and/or the media is at least a thousand years old at this point, and it's still widely held in certain demographics. Doesn't mean I have the CEOs of Paramount Pictures and Chase Bank on my speed-dial.

I appreciate you acknowledging that your reaction is consistent with a stereotype, and that you're willing to have that gut reaction changed. What would it take to change it? Specific counter-examples of African-Americans who don't fit the stereotype, or demographic statistics? It's difficult to disprove a stereotype, and I'm not sure how to do it. I could name a hundred Jews off the top of my head who don't have any invovlement in the media or banking, but I'm not sure that'd disprove the World Zionist Conspiracy stereotype to someone who adhered to it. I could name hundreds of African-American men who aren't violent criminals, but I don't know if that's an effective way to disspell the "black brute" stereotype for those that think there's some truth to it.
 
He may not have been breaking the law by following him, but he was advised by the police to not leave his car and follow him. Taking into the account that Zimmerman had wanted to become a policeman and was denied and his 40+ 9-1-1 calls over the last few years as well as violently resisting arrest by a police officer, one can only logically assume he felt the need to step beyond the boundaries of a mere neighborhood watchman and decide to "play cop". Moreover, neighborhood watch are called "watch" for a reason. They're only there to report suspicious activity to the police.
 
Not quite. Martin chose to attack Zimmerman without asking for an explanation for why he was being followed. Zimmerman's behavior inevitably led to an angry confrontation, but they didn't inevitably lead to physical violence. That's the fault of whoever chose to throw the first punch, and there's a respectable amount of evidence that it was Martin who threw the first punch.

I remember being profiled repeatedly (not for my skin color, but for being a teenage goth), and I never once physically attacked the person who was doing it. Martin was a teenager, but he wasn't a young child, and he bears personal responsibility for injecting physical violence into the confrontation if in fact he was the first to throw a punch.



He was advised that they didn't need him to. This is very, very different than being told not to do something. The media has muddied this issue, but the evidence at trial was clear that he was told it wasn't necessary to follow Martin, not that he shouldn't do so. Even the prosecutor at trial admitted this.
 
I don't think we know that at all. The jury couldn't find beyond a reasonably doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, but that doesn't justify the unqualified claim that Martin did.
 
That's why I wrote things like "...there's a respectable amount of evidence that it was Martin who threw the first punch" and "he bears personal responsibility for injecting physical violence into the confrontation if in fact he was the first to throw a punch." I never said it was proven that Martin threw the first punch. I said that if he did, he bears responsibility for doing so.
 
He DID report it and when told not to continue following (or more accurately "we don't need you to do that") he said "Ok".

According to the only source we have - Zimmerman - Martin came up to him and initiated the physicality. This leads to the "offtopic style" attack described by witnesses

This may seem like a reversal of my earlier position, and it is for good reason - I read. I read lots and lots and lots and in all I read I find it hard to ascribe anything other than crappy judgement on BOTH sides
 
Not to be terribly cynical, but he rather would say that, wouldn't he?
 
Of course - but that also does not stop it being true

The only thing that does not seem in doubt is that Martin was physically beating a prone Zimmerman and that lead to Zimmerman deploying his weapon. This is consistent throughout the testimony and interview of Zimmerman

The whole case certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but criminal and racist in motive? I cannot find evidence of that to my satisfaction
 
If he was planning on beating or shooting Martin, why would he have called the police before doing so? They showed up less than two minutes after the shot was fired. They easily could have shown up during the altercation. If I'm planning on beating or murdering someone, I don't give the cops a call before doing so and then try to do the deed before they arrive. It makes no sense.
 
Hm, interesting. I wasn't aware Zimmerman was "advised" not to, that changes the story although now I disagree with the police department allowing him to pursue the suspect seeing as to how he was simply a neighborhood watchman. However, that'll take this conversation down a different path so I'll leave that be.

I do find it highly unlikely that Trayvon Martin would just walk up to a guy and just attack him. I'm aware of Martin's gang involvement and helping to host underground street fights, but something is definitely amiss and the biggest witness, aka the suspect, is dead.

Overall, I can't help but feel that neighborhood watchmen around the country will only feel more empowered to step above and beyond in their duties after this decision where he got to walk out completely free.
 
I don't think Martin attacked him out of calm malice. I think Martin freaked out because he was being followed, thought that maybe his follower was KKK or a molester or a mugger, and tried to "get the upper hand" by quickly jumping him. A number of my friends (both male and female) have said that if someone was following them and creeping them out, they'd pepper spray or punch first, ask questions later. That's NOT a legally correct response, but unfortunately it's a somewhat-widely-held belief that it's a good idea when a "creepy guy" is following you. And I suspect that's exactly what Martin thought.
 
No, but he went looking for him, didn't he? The most parsimonious explanation seems to me to be that he found him and confronted him, things were said and somebody initiated violence after that. The idea that Martin doubled-back and ninja-stalked him to a sudden attack from a range that left Zimmerman no time to get to his weapon while he was still standing up seems... unlikely.
 
Back
Top