Jump to content
why_not: You realize that red states are made up of cities and counties, right?
It sounds like you really want to point an accusatory finger at red states for what they take in as far as tax dollars are concerned, but you don't want to give credit to the reasons behind that money being taken in.
While it's fun to blame Obama or Bush, simply blaming someone will not clean this mess up. Obama touted that he would run the most transparent administration in history. What we didn't realize, was the he meant he was going to make the information about the American people as transparent to the govenrment as possible.
It's funny that we praise "whistleblowers" who denounce corporations, but the moment someone does it to the government, we try to arrest them for treason.
I really wish the people who would trade their freedom for security would also sign a pledge not to vote ever again. Benjamin Franklin is quoted (and I paraphrase) as saying that anyone who would surrender fundamental liberty for temporary security deserves neither. The NSA is tracking our phone calls, our purchases, our web activity. The police are logging a database of where license plates are read and when, then keeping the data for 5 years. All of this sounds perfectly justifiable right?
There is no "obsession" with race on my part. I was merely pointing out that so many have used the Zimmerman trial as a means of pushing forward a racial agenda. The media has a history of, essentially, burying stories about black-on-white or black-on-black crime, but in this instance, they tried to force-feed us a case of "white hispanic"-on-black crime, as though it was somehow a microcosm of race relations in this country.
Just how are black Americans "trapped" in this existence? I spoke to many older people of varying ethnicities while I was in college, and almost all of them said that when things got tough, they would move to where things were better, regardless the sacrifice. These moves ocurred during the 1930s to 1960s. Are you saying that people now somehow have less resolve than people back then, and are thus more inclined to remain "trapped" than to better their situation? Are they just unwilling to try and improve their situation?
Seems to me, if you are in a neighborhood that "breeds crime," then the best thing to do is get out of that neighborhood. If you are truly inclined to make a better life, then nothing will stop you. And I don't consider that an idealist view. I know too many people who made the necessary sacrifices in order to better their own lives to think that it is idealistic today.
Jan - i would love to have a reasonable debate on race. But using this issue to forward such a debate is somewhat deceitful. Only if you believe every word form CNN is George Zimmerman "white." The simple truth is that, if this had been a black man killing another black man it would bareley have rated the newspaper, much less national media. Same goes for a white man killing a white man. The media latched on to a young black man having been killed by a man who could be considered white because one of his parents is white, and once Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson grabbed hold, the race was on. Politicians like Hank Johnson and Sheila Jackson-Lee didn't help in calming the situation. If anything, they did all they could to exacerbate the situation and enflame racial tensions. Barack Obama did the same. Instead of focusing on the over-abundance of black-on-black crime in the inner cities, these politicians and the news-media held breathless hold to a year-old case of self-defense that never once invoked Stand Your Ground. Why? Because it was politically prudent for them to be in the spotlight for their base.
True, but in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we can't let a [media-manufactured] crisis go to waste.
I wonder if race would've even been an issue in the Zimmerman case if CNN hadn't pushed so desperately to label him a "white Hispanic."
So, when living in a neighborhood that has seen several break-ins over the previous weeks, when the neighborhood watchman saw someone that he didn't recognize just "walking around looking at house" on a cold rainy night, he should've just let it go? There's no racial profiling. Race wasn't even brought up until the police dispatcher asked for it, so the cops would know what to be looking for. Zimmerman didn't just offer up Martin's race. He didn't even say it with confidence. When the dispatcher asked if he was "white, black, or hispanic," Zimmerman's reply was "He looks black." Zimmerman wasn't even completely sure. If he was, the easy answer would've been "He's black" not "he looks black."
Also, Zimmerman didn't call 911. He had a non-emergency hotline number that the police had given to the neighborhood watch. The operator didn't order him or even tell him not to follow Martin. They requested that he not. From the evidence provided, it appears at least initially that Zimmerman complied and Martin was basically handed a two-minute headstart to get away. He wasn't far from his townhouse, and it's not unreasonable to believe Martin could've covered the distance in the time allotted. The fact that an altercation even occured seems to point to Martin turning back and confronting Zimmerman.
How did Martin know he even had a gun? Zimmerman's gun didn't come into play until Martin already had him on the ground and was punching him.
It sounds like you are advocating for no self-defense. Seriously, should Zimmerman have just laid there and let Martin pummel him? Who's to say Martin wouldn't actually have killed or at least seriously injured him that night? We don't know; we'll never know. The justice system worked. Even Hank Johnson admits that, which is refreshing. The fact that he, and others like Sharpton, Jackson, the CBC, and the NAACP are portraying blacks (and other minorities) as victims, but then trying to get rid of a law that would let them defend themselves is very worrying.
I know that Zimmerman had been arrested in the past. Like you said, that's public information. I also know that Zimmerman was trying to become a police officer. He was also probably hyper-sensitivie to anyone in the area that he felt was out of place. Consider the situation...the neighborhood had seen several break-ins in recent days and weeks. As a neighborhood watchman, you see a young man "walking about." It's cold and rainy, so just walking about doesn't seem the wisest thing to do. Once the young man notices you watching him, he takes off running. At the time he starts running to the time you hang up with the cops is two minutes. Heck, I'm overweight and have a bad knee and back, but if given the proper motivation I could cover a lot of ground in two minutes. Surely enough to hide out of harm's way, perhaps even enough to run the few hundred feet to my house. But you se this kid run away and you don't know what he's up to. The cops request that you not follow. You comply. Perhaps, however, during your wait for the cops to arrive, you walk several feet away to try and catch of glimpse of where the kid ran off to. You're not brandishing a weapon, so the kid has no reasonable way of knowing you have one. As you walk around to try and see where he went, he steps out of the shadows and confronts you. A struggle ensues and he ends up on top of you, pummeling you with his fists and smashing the back of your head against a concrete sidewalk. What does a reasonable person do? Just lay there and take the beating (assuming yourself to be in the wrong because you grew suspicious of someone you didn't know in an area in which several robberies had occured)? Or do you do whatever it takes to save your own life? This is not about "stand your ground." This is about straight-up 'self-defense.' Zimmerman had not brandished a weapon at Martin. The biggest threat he was to Martin was that he was following him. If "following someone" is now grounds for the followed to turn and beat them up, then I should get to attack anyone who simply follows me down a hallway at work.
We'll never know who started the confrontation. The evidence was not strong enough to convict Zimmerman of 'murder-two.' The jury got it right, no matter who much Hollywood, athletes, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the NAACP refuse to see it.
Fair points, but consider this: have you ever been in a fight? I haven't, though I've seen them. Rarely does a real fight stay within a two-foot radius of where it began. They move. One guy might try to get away. One guy might throw the other a short distance. Such a possibility allows for a Zimmerman-Martin fight to begin at Zimmerman's vehicle, or nearby the vehicle, and then to move elsewhere on the property. It's also possible that Zimmerman retreated to his vehicle, then walked a short distance away to try and catch a glimpse of Martin and where he might be hiding.
To your point about his friends telling Martin to run, and then hearing him say "Why are you following me," I'd be curious to know exactly what time that was said. The police have a detailed record, complete with call times, of Zimmerman's call to the non-emergency hotline. Halfway through that 4 minute conversation, Zimmerman states that Martin has run off. He is heard to be following him until requested not to, at which point, per the phone call (police record) Zimmerman breaks off his movement.
Consider, too, that, while the defense team tried to make Zimmerman look better, the prosecution likewise would do the same for Martin. By that reasoning, it is possible that the friend on the phone would say just that, as there are no witnesses nor record to verify her story, other than her testimony.
As you can see, it's a very convoluted pile of evidence. The simple fact of the matter is the prosecution overcharged by going for second-degree murder. Then, during the trial, they didn't have enough evidence to prove that, thus leaving a reasonable doubt ni the mind of a jury. If there is reasonable doubt then conviction is impossible. Not Guilty was the only logical verdict to the trumped-up charge of murder-two.
Zimmerman never followed Martin in his truck. He stopped and watched Martin, and then followed for a moment on foot. Martin ran away. At that point, the police operator that Zimmerman was on the phone with requested (but not ordered) that Zimmerman not follow Martin. Zimmerman complied and turned back to his truck. At least two minutes later, after Zimmerman finally got of the phone with police, the confrontation began. According to all the evidence, Zimmerman had retreated back to his vehicle to await the police, and it was actually Martin that confronted him, even though Martin had "run off" two minutes earlier, and was only a few hundred feet from his townhome, an easily covered distance for an athletic 17-year-old. And yet, somehow a confrontation ensued. Trayvon's friend told him to run. He ran off into a cold rainy night. And yet, the evidence shows that he confronted Zimmerman and then he, Martin, threw the first punch. If Zimmerman did indeed retreat, as the evidence shows, and Martin then became the aggressor, then Martin was no longer under any type of self-defense. It was then Zimmerman who was defending himself.
See, I offered a rebuttal with insulting you. It's kind of sad that you think so little of your fellow comment-writers.
Last login: Wednesday, September 18, 2013