FL 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #11

[Netzilla]

Correct....and we know GZ knew NOT to follow because he did have the gun. jmo

Which just goes back to when are you a private citizen and when are you on Neighborhood watch.

I'd argue that since he had his gun, was going to the store he was a private citizen not a watch captain.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

"An escalation in civil disobedience" I take to mean organized demonstrations, marches, etc., which to date have not taken place in this case, at least in a widespread manner. What I take it clearly *not* to mean is a call to criminal action, such as riots, looting, etc. He is well within his rights as an American to "unleash the protestors", as you put it, in fact we have a long history of protesting injustice (wherever one perceives it ) in this country.

Peaceful marches and demonstrations are perfectly legal. How would that be civil disobedience?

I think they are threatening non peaceful riots.

 

[Netzilla]

The dead body as a result of a gun shot wound is evidence of a crime, it's called homocide. jmo

Given the Stand Your Ground law, I would not agree in all cases... jmo

 

[gitana1]

So, I came across this article where Jesse Jackson was doing an interview about the Trayvon Martin case:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...n-case-jesse-jackson-20120323,0,2131299.story

It doesn't seem like he's necessarily advocating peaceful demonstrations when he says things like, "No justice, no peace." It seems like he's race-baiting when he goes into how "Black are under attack", and "Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business." It certainly comes across to me like he's pushing his own agenda.

It's not "race baiting" if it's true.

I can see one or two cops doing that, but seemingly an entire police department orchestrating this seems a little far-fetched.

Well, it already happened in Sanford with the Justin Collison case, so why not now?

There is nothing that we have seen that points to GZ as a racist.

NOTHING.

But yet it's continued over and over on the thread.

He has been called a racist for weeks now and I've seen no evidence of it.

Unless, just the fact TM was black means GZ was racist.

I don't get it.

It depends on one's definition of the term. I think GZ was or is likely to get into an altercation with anyone, regardless of race. However, the fact that he found a kid suspicious just for walking, and not doing anything different, indicates to many that he has underlying negative attitudes about race, because 1) Trayvon did nothing except be black when Zimmerman called police, 2) Zimmerman has made numerous calls about black people and, 3) he clearly said that "they always get away".

I think he was always on the verge of gunning for someone and I believe that his innate prejudices made Trayvon a good target. I believe when he saw Trayvon he felt he was a criminal because he was alone, at night, he didn't recognize him and he was black. I think he made up his mind due to that and decided he wasn't going to let this one get away. He likely assumed, as a part of prejudicial profiling, that Trayvon had some sort of criminal background, so if he shot him, as long as he set the case up well enough before hand, he could claim it was justified.

Does that make GZ a gibbering racist who likes to wear white hoods, hates black people, believes blacks are animals or inferior or uses the "n" word all the time? No. But, his inner dialogue could certainly point to a race-based profiling that, had it not existed, may have not resulted in death that night. I believe, from a logical look at the parties and the case thus far, that that is the case.

But it is really the response to this shooting and the history of the department and city and county responding, that points to race as an issue in the case. Black people well know that justice is slow and even often non-existent for their people. It appears that a thorough investigation may not have been done. Why? It appears that the local, Sanford state attorney as well as the Chief of police there responded to a case they normally do not respond to and overrode the investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman. Why? Maybe the same reason Collison was not arrested even when the Sanford police had a tape of him sucker-punching a black man for no reason.

There is a history in that area of serious racism. This case must be examined in the context of that, especially when the response to the shooting veers from what is the norm, which is an arrest.

That's why the activists and so many Americans of all backgrounds are demonstrating. Injustice for black people is not new and does not simply disappear just because a few Supreme Court decisions and wise presidents have tried to force racists to abide by the constitution.

Did the underlying attitude of all those people screaming "Ni&&ers go home!" to little black children wanting to go to school, simply disappear? Did the attitude surrounding the lynchings, the beatings, the hosings, the arrests, etc., vanish? No. Some people are more careful about expressing certain things in public, that's all. Yes, black people can ride in the front of the bus, there is a holiday for MLK, but we still have judges who refuse to marry black and white couples, teens who murder innocent black people while screaming racial epithets and a media that ignores missing black people, differing laws for powder cocaine user who tend to be white and rock cocaine users who tend to be black, among other things. And none of that occurs in a vacuum.

We still have millions of people who have secret hatreds that are communicated subtly, or not so subtly in their homes, or subconscious prejudices that affect how they view, react to or empathize with certain people or situations.

I think we have made great progress in our beautiful country but real and lasting, ever progressing change only happens with collective shame and outrage and a dedication to not only making sure the past does not repeat itself, but that the vestiges of the past are uncovered and rooted out. IMO, that's what this case is about.

My point was, I don't think Al Sharpton would have shown up.

No, he wouldn't have. Because he is an activist for a specific cause -the civil rights of black people - as we all know. And there's nothing wrong with that. People generally pick a cause closest to their heart and work on that. We can't expect everyone to work on every cause.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If a moderator would like to delete my post that has offended some, I will have no problem with that? I was simply taking the words released by George's family/friend/lawyer and wrote it out as a sequence of events to show George's side of what he said happened that night. If you're offended by that, I really am sorry.

It was in no way intended to demean or disrespect victims of violence.

I don't think you meant it to be offensive or to demean or disrespect anybody, but I did cringe a little when I read it.

Just being honest not trying to make you feel bad.

 

[katydid23]

"An escalation in civil disobedience" I take to mean organized demonstrations, marches, etc., which to date have not taken place in this case, at least in a widespread manner. What I take it clearly *not* to mean is a call to criminal action, such as riots, looting, etc. He is well within his rights as an American to "unleash the protestors", as you put it, in fact we have a long history of protesting injustice (wherever one perceives it ) in this country.

Marches and protests are not civil DISOBEDIENCE. An escalation in civil disobedience implies the breaking of laws, like sitting in traffic, taking over the lobby of City Hall, etc etc. And the Walgreen's incident for another example. And that kind of civil disobedience can quickly escalate into trash cab fires, breaking of store windows, tipping over cars, etc.

Protests and demonstrations do not imply illegal actions.

 

[gitana1]

Given the Stand Your Ground law, I would not agree in all cases... jmo

Lambchop is technically right. It is homicide. Whether justified or not is another issue.

 

[m00c0w]

It's not "race baiting" if it's true.

race baiting (uncountable)
The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race_baiting

If the shoe fits...

Well, it already happened in Sanford with the Justin Collison case, so why not now?

That was the son of a lieutenant on the force. Zimmerman is no such thing.

 

[okiedokietoo]

IMO at this point without all the evidence in and realeased by LE after their investigation it seems to me to be somewhat of a political and agenda driven, for a few, argument

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/opinion/bennett-trayvon-martin/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
updated 9:41 AM EDT, Fri March 30, 2012

To make matters more complex, we found out that in the past several months, Martin was suspended from school three times, once for the possession of drug paraphernalia.
The Miami Herald reported that in the gated community in which Zimmerman patrolled, there were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the past year. Neighbors of Zimmerman described him as being passionate about security and credit him with thwarting and cracking some crimes. It was also revealed that Zimmerman identified himself as a Hispanic and was a registered Democrat.

The New Black Panther Party offered a bounty for Zimmerman's capture.

Spike Lee fueled the flames by tweeting Zimmerman's home address, which turned out to be the wrong address and resulted in an older couple fleeing from their home and fearing for their lives after threats and crowds outside their residence. Lee, realizing his folly, has since apologized to the couple.

It's clear that some of the people raising the most noise are trying to make this less about the horrible death of a young man and more about claims of racial resentment that may or may not exist

BBM

 

[gxm]

this absurd story floated by his family, complete with fear of being diaper clad for the rest of his life, simply defied logic and does not comport with the evidence such as the 911 call. His family is saying so many ridiculous things that I also feel they are insulting our intelligence. A young man died and the killers family is making up a story that's full of lies, including his brother who is estranged from him and who he apparently doesn't even speak to and who just wanted his 15 minutes. Oh, and it's the neighbors fault for not coming out. Talk about people who take no responsibility.

I know what it's like to have your head repeatedly slammed into a hard surface. And, yes, you do worry that your brains are going to end up spilled across the floor. It's not funny. It isn't necessary to mock a physical assault to get the point across. I realize that people think GZ is lying but whatever happened, it ended in tragedy and IMO it's just not necessary to mock it. I feel the same about all the hoody jokes.

I think I'll time myself out before the mods do.

 

[dienermom]

Peaceful marches and demonstrations are perfectly legal. How would that be civil disobedience?

I think they are threatening non peaceful riots.

Civil disobedience is the opposite of "non-peaceful riots," which would almost certainly involve criminal activity. Civil disobedience = Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, sit ins, demonstrations that may block traffic, etc. I take his message as clearly stating that he is *not* condoning a violent response.

 

[highflyer]

Which just goes back to when are you a private citizen and when are you on Neighborhood watch.

I'd argue that since he had his gun, was going to the store he was a private citizen not a watch captain.

GZ is always a watch captain. He is the watch captain. People could call him for help. He may or may not of been going to the store, but he did trail TM and called in a 911 call. It is on tape.

 

[Netzilla]

Lambchop is technically right. It is homicide. Whether justified or not is another issue.

Thanks for your correction and explanation. I took her comment to mean something illegal transpired. My apologies to all!

 

[dienermom]

Marches and protests are not civil DISOBEDIENCE. An escalation in civil disobedience implies the breaking of laws, like sitting in traffic, taking over the lobby of City Hall, etc etc. And the Walgreen's incident for another example. And that kind of civil disobedience can quickly escalate into trash cab fires, breaking of store windows, tipping over cars, etc.

Protests and demonstrations do not imply illegal actions.

Sitting in traffic and protesting in other ways that might break ordinances, etc. is certainly not the same thing as inciting a "non-peaceful" event, such as a riot, as has been implied here. People may be arrested for these actions, but that does not make them violent.

 

[Boytwnmom]

of the analysis. It's not as if every single person who shoots someone dead can just claim SYG and police say, "OK, can't do nothin". Of course not, the credibility is in need of unbiased assessment in light of the evidence and the calls and instructions to GZ, the whole picture. Instead of the questionable determination (as evidenced by the new investigations which place the prior determinations in jeopardy) first made one needs to be made based on the totality of the circumstances. One conclusion can be that GZ is full of BS and they choose to not find any of his testimony credible.

I don't believe that to be true at all, because stand-your-ground law prevents them from making an arrest unless they have evidence that contradicts self-defense.

 

[songline]

So, I came across this article where Jesse Jackson was doing an interview about the Trayvon Martin case:






http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...n-case-jesse-jackson-20120323,0,2131299.story

It doesn't seem like he's necessarily advocating peaceful demonstrations when he says things like, "No justice, no peace." It seems like he's race-baiting when he goes into how "Black are under attack", and "Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business." It certainly comes across to me like he's pushing his own agenda.

This is all I have to say to Mr. Jackson.
MARTIN LUTHER KING DIED for Harmony among all people NOT to create a deeper divide.
IMHO Rev. Jackson is a divider not one who unites.
And I stand by that. MO

 

[gitana1]

Peaceful marches and demonstrations are perfectly legal. How would that be civil disobedience?

I think they are threatening non peaceful riots.

That's quite a stretch. I agree that, if permits are acquired, peaceful demonstrations and marches are not civil disobedience. Which is all we have had thus far despite several people predicting some large-scale race riot.

But civil disobedience is NOT a riot. Two different things. As, I think, Katydid pointed out, civil disobedience includes sit-ins, taking over lobbies, refusing to get out of the road, etc. I will add that it includes chaining oneself to a fence, marches or rallies without permit, and so on. It's what Ghandi did during his years of activism and what MLK and his followers did during the civil rights movement. Illegal activity, but not a riot. Civil disobedience is the conscious refusal to follow certain laws, in a peaceful manner, in an effort to make a point.

 

[Netzilla]

GZ is always a watch captain. He is the watch captain. People could call him for help. He may or may not of been going to the store, but he did trail TM and called in a 911 call. It is on tape.

That might be something for a civil liability trial but unless he signed away his rights I don't see that as an issue in a criminal case - JMO.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

It's not "race baiting" if it's true.



Well, it already happened in Sanford with the Justin Collison case, so why not now?



It depends on one's definition of the term. I think GZ was or is likely to get into an altercation with anyone, regardless of race. However, the fact that he found a kid suspicious just for walking, and not doing anything different, indicates to many that he has underlying negative attitudes about race, because 1) Trayvon did nothing except be black when Zimmerman called police, 2) Zimmerman has made numerous calls about black people and, 3) he clearly said that "they always get away".

I think he was always on the verge of gunning for someone and I believe that his innate prejudices made Trayvon a good target. I believe when he saw Trayvon he felt he was a criminal because he was alone, at night, he didn't recognize him and he was black. I think he made up his mind due to that and decided he wasn't going to let this one get away. He likely assumed, as a part of prejudicial profiling, that Trayvon had some sort of criminal background, so if he shot him, as long as he set the case up well enough before hand, he could claim it was justified.

Does that make GZ a gibbering racist who likes to wear white hoods, hates black people, believes blacks are animals or inferior or uses the "n" word all the time? No. But, his inner dialogue could certainly point to a race-based profiling that, had it not existed, may have not resulted in death that night. I believe, from a logical look at the parties and the case thus far, that that is the case.

But it is really the response to this shooting and the history of the department and city and county responding, that points to race as an issue in the case. Black people well know that justice is slow and even often non-existent for their people. It appears that a thorough investigation may not have been done. Why? It appears that the local, Sanford state attorney as well as the Chief of police there responded to a case they normally do not respond to and overrode the investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman. Why? Maybe the same reason Collison was not arrested even when the Sanford police had a tape of him sucker-punching a black man for no reason.

There is a history in that area of serious racism. This case must be examined in the context of that, especially when the response to the shooting veers from what is the norm, which is an arrest.

That's why the activists and so many Americans of all backgrounds are demonstrating. Injustice for black people is not new and does not simply disappear just because a few Supreme Court decisions and wise presidents have tried to force racists to abide by the constitution.

Did the underlying attitude of all those people screaming "Ni&&ers go home!" to little black children wanting to go to school, simply disappear? Did the attitude surrounding the lynchings, the beatings, the hosings, the arrests, etc., vanish? No. Some people are more careful about expressing certain things in public, that's all. Yes, black people can ride in the front of the bus, there is a holiday for MLK, but we still have judges who refuse to marry black and white couples, teens who murder innocent black people while screaming racial epithets and a media that ignores missing black people, differing laws for powder cocaine user who tend to be white and rock cocaine users who tend to be black, among other things. And none of that occurs in a vacuum.

We still have millions of people who have secret hatreds that are communicated subtly, or not so subtly in their homes, or subconscious prejudices that affect how they view, react to or empathize with certain people or situations.

I think we have made great progress in our beautiful country but real and lasting, ever progressing change only happens with collective shame and outrage and a dedication to not only making sure the past does not repeat itself, but that the vestiges of the past are uncovered and rooted out. IMO, that's what this case is about.



No, he wouldn't have. Because he is an activist for a specific cause -the civil rights of black people - as we all know. And there's nothing wrong with that. People generally pick a cause closest to their heart and work on that. We can't expect everyone to work on every cause.

First let me say, I'm on a cell using Tapatalk and it's really hard for me to read, follow, and respond to multi quotes. I cant see the part addressed to me while I'm typing my response. So if I seem to ignore portions, please know I did not. I read your entire post and I appreciate you taking time to "talk" to me here at WS. :smile:

Ok, disclaimer done.

I know the difficulties black people have faced in this country. I KNOW the heartache, struggles, sacrifice, and loss they have endured.
I get that. And I totally sympathize.
As an aside, my "idol" growing up was Harriet Tubman. I was obsessed with reading anything about her I could get my hands on.

Now, I was a little white girl in the deep south. So, I'm sure some people thought I was nuts. Lol

I'm not a racist. I HATE all forms of racism.

I believe everyone should be equal. Skin color should never matter.

I do think THIS case, as far as GZ is concerned is not a racial case.

LE??? Maybe. I just don't know.

But it really rubs me the wrong way when people call GZ a racist because we don't have any information that says that.

I'm sure you addresses more than this in your post. Sorry if I missed anything.

 

[katydid23]

Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP are bussing people in from all over to march on the Sanford police station. Does it sound like it is going to stay peaceful? I am not sure about that.


"Saturday’s scheduled march from Crooms Academy of Information Technology to the Sanford Police Department headquarters was organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Coordinators said people will be bused in from other states to participate."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...merman_remains_free/srvc=home&position=recent