Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[forevereagle]

[Rudy]

You need to stop posting so emotionally and get the facts. Barney clearly did not start until 1992. Now, if you want to accuse him of watching thundercats, then that's fine.

And what's wrong with Thudercats?

[MeanGreenTexan]

And what's wrong with Thudercats?

Go read the Florida Law.

[emmitt01]

There you go with that broad prejudicial brush of yours yet again.

So, your entire knowledge of the 80s is Barney and Miami vice re-runs. Got it.

I watched G.I. Joe and caught all the PSA's. I know all about the dope smokin, kidnapping and juvenile fire starting that was going on...so I had already won half the battle.

[CMJ]

I watched G.I. Joe and caught all the PSA's. I know all about the dope smokin, kidnapping and juvenile fire starting that was going on...so I had already won half the battle.

When I tried to explain these PSA's to my girlfriend, she wondered what the other half of the battle besides "knowing" was. I was never able to adequately explain it to her.

[UNT90]

Go read the Florida Law.

Shouldn't everyone ?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

That's interesting, nearly 80% of the fathers are participating in their kid's lives these days. I wouldn't have guessed it was that high?

Rick

White fathers. The chart show living arrangement for white children.

Emmitt was trying to show something to counter Shelby Steele. So. he shows a graph saying 3/4th of white kids grow up in two parent homes. How this fits into countering black professor/commentator Shelby Steele's contention that black leaders ignore the real problems within black society, I don't know. It doesn't really counter it at all.

[UNT Five&Dime]

White fathers. The chart show living arrangement for white children.

Emmitt was trying to show something to counter Shelby Steele. So. he shows a graph saying 3/4th of white kids grow up in two parent homes. How this fits into countering black professor/commentator Shelby Steele's contention that black leaders ignore the real problems within black society, I don't know. It doesn't really counter it at all.

R U GAY BLACK WOMAN?!?!?1?!

[Rudy]

When I tried to explain these PSA's to my girlfriend, she wondered what the other half of the battle besides "knowing" was. I was never able to adequately explain it to her.

It was shooting laser guns at Cobra and never killing anyone. Duh!

[emmitt01]

Then try reading this. He's more eloquent than I (and grossly more articulate and on point than TFLF) if you've got ten minutes to read.http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14352-3/the-myth-of-the-missing-black-father/excerpt

And let's not forget that race baiter Barack Obama. I mean, he has NEVER asked blacks to take responsibility, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/16obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[

Also, I find it amusing (and quite telling) that you feel the need to continually point out that Shelby Steele is, indeed, black. It's as if you are reaching for a certain moral authority that you feel you'd be denied if you didn't drive that point home..."I'm going to point out how utterly irresponsible the black community is, but they're not MY sentiments they're a BLACK guy's". I've read quite a bit of Mr. steele's writing and, in many cases, he makes valid arguments...arguments that stand on their own merits and not simply because he's black.

More interesting to me is that you feel the need to worry about what Al Sharpton and his ilk are doing at all. That you quite literally have a pathological need to point out how you are not personally, or as a member of the collective "white people", responsible for the shortcomings of SOME blacks makes me wonder what it is that agitates you so. If, as a great many conservative pundits are so quick to espouse, the playing field truly has been rendered level and personal responsibility (or lack thereof) is the only hurdle still facing the black community, then why the need to justify your...or anyone else's...innocence? To me it's much like the referees at a North Texas basketball game. If the game is played by the rules, I.e. the refs aren't in league with either team, and Benford is flat out out coached then why does it matter how many times a fan screams "ref, you're throwing the game" or "how much are they paying you?" The refs should simply walk into their dressing room carefree with no need to respond to the drunken fans (Sharpton et al).

Edited July 25, 2013 by emmitt01

[JesseMartin]

The fact that you all say such insane and confusing things makes me wonder why you aren't friends...now I'm going to jump downed power lines on my bike and speak in rhymes, right after I put out this fire while talking in an Irish accent. Because we all know G.I. Joe was all about diversity with no racial or ethnic stereotypes...wait, is that why you punks snuck that in here?

[GreenMachine]

No matter the color, black, white, yellow, or polka dotted, we are all individuals and can only control our own actions and destinies. Sharpton doesn't speak for the entire black community just like Limbaugh doesn't speak for the entire white community. If everybody bettered themselves as an individual, then collectively all races, groups, etc would improve as a whole.

Lets all just worry about ourselves, respect each other, hold hands, and sing around the campfire. Peace

[emmitt01]

No matter the color, black, white, yellow, or polka dotted, we are all individuals and can only control our own actions and destinies. Sharpton doesn't speak for the entire black community just like Limbaugh doesn't speak for the entire white community. If everybody bettered themselves as an individual, then collectively all races, groups, etc would improve as a whole.

Lets all just worry about ourselves, respect each other, hold hands, and sing around the campfire. Peace

Why do this when we can speak in generalities and point out where "you people" are perceived to fail? Why judge me, or anyone else, as a person when we can invoke Al Sharpton and then ascribe his beliefs to an entire class of people? Don't you know that pointing out how off base the most militant in a particular group are (Shelby Steele prefered Malcolm X to MLK, just as an aside) makes it easier to talk down to those who are behaving with a sense of personal accountability...because assuming group think on their part is the only conceivable way to advance this argument.

No, saying that individual fathers (regardless of race) should take responsibility is too simple. Saying that parents should instill the value of education in their children (regardless of race) is too devoid of bully pulpit talking points. The conversation must now be couched in terms of an epidemic facing one community (and not another) and how you have a wisdom about where it stems from that they are just too dumb to recognize themselves. It's the 21st century bigotry, racism masked as paternalism.

Edited July 25, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

Why do this when we can speak in generalities and point out where "you people" are perceived to fail? Why judge me, or anyone else, as a person when we can invoke Al Sharpton and then ascribe his beliefs to an entire class of people? Don't you know that pointing out how off base the most militant in a particular group are (Shelby Steele prefered Malcolm X to MLK, just as an aside) makes it easier to talk down to those who are behaving with a sense of personal accountability...because assuming group think on their part is the only conceivable way to advance this argument.

No, saying that individual fathers (regardless of race) should take responsibility is too simple. Saying that parents should instill the value of education in their children (regardless of race) is too devoid of bully pulpit talking points. The conversation must now be couched in terms of an epidemic facing one community (and not another) and how you have a wisdom about where it stems from that they are just too dumb to recognize themselves. It's the 21st century bigotry, racism masked as paternalism.

I was with you until the very end. This B.S. about white people being unable to have an opinion about race because they are white has got to stop. You can't yell racism every time a white person points out an obvious problem in the black community like the black on black homicide rate in major cities in this country. It's like saying "shut up and just let us kill each other."

Not only that, but then "leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson will actually blame black on black crime on... the evil white people. Do they believe this? No, but it allows them to avoid the issue while getting their picture in the paper and more poor people's money in their wallet.

There are statistics out there that just can't be ignored. I would agree that it has much more to do with socio-economic status than race, but you still can't ignore what those statistics say.

[emmitt01]

I was with you until the very end. This B.S. about white people being unable to have an opinion about race because they are white has got to stop. You can't yell racism every time a white person points out an obvious problem in the black community like the black on black homicide rate in major cities in this country. It's like saying "shut up and just let us kill each other."Not only that, but then "leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson will actually blame black on black crime on... the evil white people. Do they believe this? No, but it allows them to avoid the issue while getting their picture in the paper and more poor people's money in their wallet.There are statistics out there that just can't be ignored. I would agree that it has much more to do with socio-economic status than race, but you still can't ignore what those statistics say.

Thank you so very much. Thank you for putting forth the biggest bullshit argument in the right wing arsenal. "Black on black crime" is the single most overused and disengenuous argument that there is. Where is the outrage about white on white crime, latino on latino crime, etc? Where was the outrage when a white child walked into his school full of other white children and murdered them? When Susan Smith, a white woman, killed her white children why was this not painted as a broader problem? Be ause each of these were isolated incidents? We all know better.

It has been proven (just look up DOJ statistics) that blacks kill more blacks, whites kill more whites, and so on and so forth...yet Bill O'Reilly can only cling to "black on black crime" somehow. I think this article outlines it better than any of us ever could.

http://mobile.theroot.com/articles/culture/2012/04/whiteonwhite_crime_it_goes_against_the_false_media_narrative.html

"What Will, Steele and O'Reilly failed to mention is the exacting truth that white Americans are just as likely to be killed by other whites. According to Justice Department statistics (pdf), 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

In fact, all races share similar ratios. Yet there's no outrage or racialized debate about "white on white" violence. Instead, the myth and associated fear of "black on black" crime is sold as a legitimate, mainstream descriptive and becomes American status quo.

The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, more than 2-1."

And I have never put forth that white people can't have an opinion on race. I am just insulted, and I think justifiably so, when whites put forth problems that are universal in terms that are specific to one race and then attempt to take a paternalistic tone with it (gee, seems I spelled this out already but I'll reiterate). What TFLF (and Bill O'Reilly et al) are doing is the functional equivalent of the New York police commissioner coming out and saying "You know, if the L.A. PD would fix its police brutality problem they would have far better public relations...I'm just trying to be helpful".

And, for the fiftieth time, what the hell does Al Sharpton have to do with me? I know it kills you deep inside to restrict an argument to my opinions and yours but let's take that aderol and focus, shall we? Again, "blacks" don't have a collective consciousness.

Edited July 25, 2013 by emmitt01

[UNT90]

Thank you so very much. Thank you for putting forth the biggest bullshit argument in the right wing arsenal. "Black on black crime" is the single most overused and disengenuous argument that there is. Where is the outrage about white on white crime, latino on latino crime, etc? Where was the outrage when a white child walked into his school full of other white children and murdered them? When Susan Smith, a white woman, killed her white children why was this not painted as a broader problem? Be ause each of these were isolated incidents? We all know better.

It has been proven (just look up DOJ statistics) that blacks kill more blacks, whites kill more whites, and so on and so forth...yet Bill O'Reilly can only cling to "black on black crime" somehow. I think this article outlines it better than any of us ever could.

"What Will, Steele and O'Reilly failed to mention is the exacting truth that white Americans are just as likely to be killed by other whites. According to Justice Department statistics (pdf), 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

In fact, all races share similar ratios. Yet there's no outrage or racialized debate about "white on white" violence. Instead, the myth and associated fear of "black on black" crime is sold as a legitimate, mainstream descriptive and becomes American status quo.

The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, more than 2-1."

Yes , white lead blacks 2 to 1 in the areas you mention, but also as you mention, whites make up about 80% of the population.

I'd love to see any study that says white on white homicide rates are a greater percentage inside their race than black on black. You said it, now prove it.

Whites absolutely have the market cornered on serial murderers and child murderers, but those are a fraction of the overall murders in the US.

L

Edited July 25, 2013 by UNT90

[emmitt01]

Yes , white lead blacks 2 to 1 in the areas you mention, but also as you mention, whites make up about 80% of the population.

I'd love to see any study that says white on white homicide rates are a greater percentage inside their race than black on black. You said it, now prove it.

Whites absolutely have the market cornered on serial murderers and child murderers, but those are a fraction of the overall murders in the US.

L

Try again. Whites (not latino) are 63% of the US population...unless I'm reading the US census bureau's own statistic incorrectly. And I think this article articulates why counting the total number of each racial group is actually LESS ammo for the "black on black crime" talking point.

http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/22683535699/black-on-black-crime

And my point isn't that whites are inherently criminal. Far from it. I just find it amusing that, if 84% of whites are killed by other whites, this "epidemic" doesn't get the same traction as the "black on black crime" narrative. I'm not arguing for the creation of a "white on white crime" catch phrase...quite the opposite. I'm just arguing that we should stop running to polarizing catch phrases that attempt to oversimplify and pidgeon hole ANY race.

Edited July 25, 2013 by emmitt01

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Why do you lump me in with guys on cable TV? We don't even have a cable package that carries FOX/CNN/MSNBC, etc. We don't even have a cable package that has ESPN! If you come to our house, be prepared to watch a lot of the Spanish channels. But, you won't find the talking heads of either political side because we choose not to have it.

I agree with Shelby Steele. He is far more credible to me than Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their ilk. He is correct in his analysis of the ZImmerman-Martin trial and the reactions to it by the Jackson/Sharptons. Those two are always harping on a political point/solution to everything, while Steele correctly asserts that stable homes should be more of a concern to them than it is.

[emmitt01]

Why do you lump me in with guys on cable TV? We don't even have a cable package that carries FOX/CNN/MSNBC, etc. We don't even have a cable package that has ESPN! If you come to our house, be prepared to watch a lot of the Spanish channels. But, you won't find the talking heads of either political side because we choose not to have it.

I agree with Shelby Steele. He is far more credible to me than Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their ilk. He is correct in his analysis of the ZImmerman-Martin trial and the reactions to it by the Jackson/Sharptons. Those two are always harping on a political point/solution to everything, while Steele correctly asserts that stable homes should be more of a concern to them than it is.

And he's exactly right, stable homes should be more of a concern UNIVERSALLY.

Had your argument been that all men need to be more responsible and tend to the needs of their families I would have been right there with you. In fact, had you stated that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are always eerily absent on the big issues in the black community I would have co-signed.

Where I depart is in the characterization of the black community en mass taking their cues from Kanye West...especially given how misleading the "unmarried mothers" statistic is. Even in the case of Kanye West (who I wholeheartedly agree is a poor role model) it is yet to be seen how involved in his daughter's life he will ultimately be. If he never marries Kim Kardashian, yet is financially and physically present for his child, are we to damn him and blacks at large for his contribution to the "unwed mothers" statistic?

[emmitt01]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/Juror-says-she-owes-Martins-parents-apology-217022531.html

No matter how you feel, this is interesting.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

She doesn't make any sense. She says he committed murder but that there wasn't proof to convict him. You either have the proof to convict on a murder charge or you don't. Emmitt, you know this: Any and all killing does not = murder when it comes to the law.

This is legal territory covered pages and pages ago. There is a standard for murder and Zimmerman didn't meet it.

He was not guilty of murder because murder is either:

First degree = premeditated or purposely killing while in the act of committing another felony
Second degree = depraved mind/acting with no regard for human life or accomplice to a first degree felony murder
Third degree = unintentional killing while committing a "non-violent" felony

Zimmerman wasn't in the act of committing a felony, nor was he acting with no regard (i.e., drive by shooting, firing a gun aimlessly into a crowd, discharging a weapon with children in the house, etc.). So, that wipes out any possilbe murder conviction. Which, again, make it all the more ridiculous that the State even tried...but, again, as we've discussed - political pressure.

I do think he was guilty of mansalughter. But, as posted before, had they gone manslaughter first, they would have been hammered politically for not going for murder. Politically. Because people do not understand the law, the run around talking about murder.

Voluntary manslaughter would have been proof of an intentional act that cannot be justified or excused. I think they could have hung him there - had they not hastily tacked it on during closing arguments.

Involuntary manslaughter is a killing that results from culpable negligence. This would have been the easiest to prove of all. But, still, Voluntary would have been pretty easy, too - had it been allowed to be the charge!

Again and again and again...everyone got so politically heated up about the thing that the State did the wrong thing to try to placate the Jackson/Sharpton faction.

In Florida, a manslaughter conviction which includes the use of a firearm get a mandatory 9 and 1/4 years sentence. Total sentence can be up to 30 years.

That would not have been enough to placate the race droolers. But, it would have been a charge that made sense legally. And, it would have been hella easy to prove, given the evidence.

Finally, if he had been convicted of manslaughter, this thing still wouldn't be over because Jackson/Sharpton would be Monday Morning Quarterbacking the decision not to pursue murder charges.

For old, long suffering Ranger fans, asking the prosecutors to try a second degree murder with this evidence would have been like Pat Corrales asking Tucker Ashford to bat for Al Oliver with the bases load with two out in the bottom of the ninth while behind by only one run back in 1980.

So, when you think of the Zimmerman/Martin trial, think of second degree murder as Tucker Ashford and his .125 batting average and 3 RBIs and manslaughter as Al Oliver and his .329/117. I don't know how much more succinct it can be than that.

[oldguystudent]

like Pat Corrales asking Tucker Ashford to bat for Al Oliver with the bases load with two out in the bottom of the ninth while behind by only one run back in 1980.

Al Oliver is the first major player that I have conscious memory of seeing in person at my first baseball game in Oakland in 1981. Mike Norris and the A's beat Rick Honeycutt and the Rangers 2-1 that afternoon and I was forever hooked on baseball.

[emmitt01]

She doesn't make any sense. She says he committed murder but that there wasn't proof to convict him. You either have the proof to convict on a murder charge or you don't. Emmitt, you know this: Any and all killing does not = murder when it comes to the law.

This is legal territory covered pages and pages ago. There is a standard for murder and Zimmerman didn't meet it.

He was not guilty of murder because murder is either:

First degree = premeditated or purposely killing while in the act of committing another felony

Second degree = depraved mind/acting with no regard for human life or accomplice to a first degree felony murder

Third degree = unintentional killing while committing a "non-violent" felony

Zimmerman wasn't in the act of committing a felony, nor was he acting with no regard (i.e., drive by shooting, firing a gun aimlessly into a crowd, discharging a weapon with children in the house, etc.). So, that wipes out any possilbe murder conviction. Which, again, make it all the more ridiculous that the State even tried...but, again, as we've discussed - political pressure.

I do think he was guilty of mansalughter. But, as posted before, had they gone manslaughter first, they would have been hammered politically for not going for murder. Politically. Because people do not understand the law, the run around talking about murder.

Voluntary manslaughter would have been proof of an intentional act that cannot be justified or excused. I think they could have hung him there - had they not hastily tacked it on during closing arguments.

Involuntary manslaughter is a killing that results from culpable negligence. This would have been the easiest to prove of all. But, still, Voluntary would have been pretty easy, too - had it been allowed to be the charge!

Again and again and again...everyone got so politically heated up about the thing that the State did the wrong thing to try to placate the Jackson/Sharpton faction.

In Florida, a manslaughter conviction which includes the use of a firearm get a mandatory 9 and 1/4 years sentence. Total sentence can be up to 30 years.

That would not have been enough to placate the race droolers. But, it would have been a charge that made sense legally. And, it would have been hella easy to prove, given the evidence.

Finally, if he had been convicted of manslaughter, this thing still wouldn't be over because Jackson/Sharpton would be Monday Morning Quarterbacking the decision not to pursue murder charges.

For old, long suffering Ranger fans, asking the prosecutors to try a second degree murder with this evidence would have been like Pat Corrales asking Tucker Ashford to bat for Al Oliver with the bases load with two out in the bottom of the ninth while behind by only one run back in 1980.

So, when you think of the Zimmerman/Martin trial, think of second degree murder as Tucker Ashford and his .125 batting average and 3 RBIs and manslaughter as Al Oliver and his .329/117. I don't know how much more succinct it can be than that.

Yeah yeah, I get all that. The part I find interesting is that she and SEVERAL of the jurors felt differently than the "Zimmerman was just a good ol' boy protecting himself from a thug" narrative that many want to say was "clear as day".

[LongJim]

Did you guys watch the "Afterburner" episode w/Bill Whittle? Another thought-provoking tack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls&list=TLPzy-pB-e_KI

[UNT90]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/Juror-says-she-owes-Martins-parents-apology-217022531.html

No matter how you feel, this is interesting.

What's interesting is the headline.

Read the story, and you will see where the juror says there was not enough evidence to convict.

You know, those pesky little details of facts as opposed to her emotional thirst for revenge.

Look at any of the major media websites out there, and you will see the headline "Juror thought Zimmerman was guilty of murder" when what the headlines should clearly say is "Juror FELT Zimmerman was guilty of murder."

We are supposed to convict people in this country based on facts and evidence, not emotion.

Also, I wish every juror in this deal would just shut the hell up and go on with their lives. Stop looking for a book deal and publicity.

And stop giving the media another way to prolong and race bait with this media created story.