PDA

View Full Version : Trayvon Martin case



Missus Akasha
07-14-2013, 02:05 PM
I live in Florida and I have lived in Florida all of my life. Though most southern non-Floridians don't view Florida as being apart of the "true" South, I can surely tell you that we are as southern as it gets. For instance, earlier this week I was in the parking lot of a Walmart putting groceries into the car with my mom when a beat-up pick-up truck drives up slow and says to me for no reason whatsoever, "Get out the way, n****r." Then drove away.

Surprisingly enough, I was more shocked that they had the nuts to say it in public, but not shocked that they called me that word. I grew up in the inner city as a young child, but I have been living in the suburbs for nine years now. I've been called this word so many times that it doesn't seem to have an effect on me anymore. That is a problem in on its own.

It's amazing how we live in 2013 and this world is still oozing in racism. As a young black woman, I feel like I am fighting against a brick wall to proof that I can do just as good.

This is case happened. Though people do not want to put the "race factor" into it and those people most likely have never experienced racism at its finest. That was what it was. How could an innocent child wearing a hoodie deserve to die? Who is given the right to take away a child's life?

I thought that maybe this would change everything. I thought this case would show that no matter what the victim's race was, what George Zimmerman did was wrong.

However, it was announced this weekend that George Zimmerman gets to walk free. A child's murder is justified, the world keeps spinning, and nothing will ever change.

S. Eli
07-14-2013, 05:44 PM
Everything's just becoming dull for me, especially after seeing "not guilty." I know you're not supposed to give up, and maybe I gave up a long time ago, but I can't stop feeling hopeless.

I've experienced different kinds of racism from all different kinds of races. The fact that someone died over prejudice, a child died over it, and nothing happened numbs me.

It's all "what's the point?" to me now, you know? But at the same time, I know it's not supposed to be. I'm supposed to be angry or calling for change or something. Mostly, I'm just sad and resigned. I know what my life is "worth," now, as a friend of mine said.

Rachel Udin
07-14-2013, 05:53 PM
Florida is sure trying to prove itself as being part of the South circa right after the emancipation proclamation.

Disenfranchising PoC votes, and the ruling in the Trayvon Martin Case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Apparently the new crime is walking with a hoodie... There are holes in the testimony too...

Also the transcript....

Kim Fierce
07-16-2013, 01:59 AM
Oh I had people on my facebook page telling me "it's not about race" and I deleted one and triiied to explain to others but apparently those who don't want to get it just won't. I think some people really don't WANT it to be about race and are decent, but they want to pretend things are never like that anymore. And some are just still racist. I told one person who is gay and said slavery is over and said "the black community" keeps making things about race . . . I told her It's not just about that. Slavery and segregation are not legal but racism is still everywhere. I see it and hear it all the time.


I'm confused because in Indiana I have always heard that no matter what, even in self-defense, an adult is not supposed to lay a hand on a minor. Apparently this isn't true in Florida. So I was expecting a conviction of some sort based on that alone. And apparently the only way they can "prove" it's a hate crime is if someone is dumb enough to shout the n-word while killing someone.

I think regardless of color, a man stalked, started a fight, and killed an unarmed minor, and should be prosecuted. But it's dumb to pretend race isn't also a factor. I also believe Trayvon Martin was profiled. But apparently no one can "prove" it.

cornflake
07-16-2013, 02:09 AM
I'm confused because in Indiana I have always heard that no matter what, even in self-defense, an adult is not supposed to lay a hand on a minor. Apparently this isn't true in Florida. So I was expecting a conviction of some sort based on that alone. And apparently the only way they can "prove" it's a hate crime is if someone is dumb enough to shout the n-word while killing someone.

Just to be clear - I absolutely don't believe Zimmerman was acting in self defense. I think he should have been convicted of manslaughter at least.

However, in a general sense, in an actual case of self defense, that's not true anyplace I've ever heard of; it doesn't matter who the aggressor is, demographically. If a child is genuinely attacking you, or pulls a gun or what have you and you have a reasonable belief that you're in danger (and in some states, if we're talking about deadly force, cannot or already have attempted to retreat - which also applies in any case, regardless of demographics), you're absolutely allowed to defend yourself with the force necessary to do so. Children don't get a pass to attack or harm adults.

The general rule is that this stuff must be reasonable and on par. A toddler kicking you doesn't justify punching or kicking the toddler back, but if a 12-year-old is beating you with a bat, you're allowed to defend yourself as necessary.

Kylabelle
07-16-2013, 02:52 AM
Even the US Attorney General Eric Holder is calling Martin's killing a tragic and unnecessary death: http://www.necn.com/07/15/13/AG-Eric-Holder-calls-Trayvon-Martin-kill/landing.html?blockID=846523&feedID=11106

We'll see if those are empty words, or not.

Rachel Udin
07-16-2013, 03:50 AM
Even the US Attorney General Eric Holder is calling Martin's killing a tragic and unnecessary death: http://www.necn.com/07/15/13/AG-Eric-Holder-calls-Trayvon-Martin-kill/landing.html?blockID=846523&feedID=11106

We'll see if those are empty words, or not.
Don't take the poll on the side... >.<;;

Kim Fierce
07-16-2013, 04:22 AM
Well, I feel like Trayvon was the one acting in self-defense, too, not Zimmerman. People keep saying it was Zimmerman acting in self-defense . . . for what? Stalking someone and no one knows who really acted first in the situation. I had heard that he was told to stop following Martin and didn't, but now I am suddenly hearing that he was supposedly heading back to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

I think another problem is we don't know which stories are true, and even someone I was "debating" about it with earlier, who I do give credit for actually saying something about it to my face (and who on my facebook page told me I was only defending Trayvon because he was black and said I was ignoring the evidence) says that both sides of the story we heard are speculation. Then he was talking about Martin's history of marijuana use, but all of that is so irrelevant if he is just walking down the street with no drugs on him. So what does that have to do with anything. I have a history of drug use and very close connections with dealers myself I'm not going to say someone deserves to die because they were walking down the street and Oh it just makes no sense! How does that justify ANYTHING?!

*ETA: I think this case will probably go federal?

cornflake
07-16-2013, 07:24 AM
I kind of doubt it will. I'm fairly sure it'll go civil though.

We know Zimmerman was lying, because he told a number of different stories at different times. I don't know which, if any, were true, but he certainly lied.

We know what he said to the dispatcher. We know how they ended up (which doesn't match with what Zimmerman claimed).

There's RJ's earwitness testimony, which to my knowledge didn't change, and some eyewitness testimony, which varied. Aside from that, no, we don't know for sure and never will.

J.S.F.
07-16-2013, 09:23 AM
I kind of doubt it will. I'm fairly sure it'll go civil though.
---ME. Pretty sure it will, and there's a lower level of provability working in this sitch, so we'll see what happens.


We know Zimmerman was lying, because he told a number of different stories at different times. I don't know which, if any, were true, but he certainly lied.

---ME. That's up to the prosecutors to prove that he lied. He wasn't on the witness stand in the trial--good thing for him, as he would have gotten himself taken apart--but in a civil lawsuit he might have to take the stand.

We know what he said to the dispatcher. We know how they ended up (which doesn't match with what Zimmerman claimed).

---ME. Thing is, the dispatcher has absolutely no power to tell him or anyone else to stop. Like, he was really gonna listen? All they can do is suggest stopping and thinking about it.

There's RJ's earwitness testimony, which to my knowledge didn't change, and some eyewitness testimony, which varied. Aside from that, no, we don't know for sure and never will.
-----

See above, please. The eyewitness testimony is bunk. We have people saying that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin and two seconds later other witnesses said they saw and/or heard Zimmerman on the bottom yelling for help. They did NOT see nor did they hear what led up to the fight, who started it, or why.

And RJ's testimony will only hurt the case, not help it. Calling someone a "cheesy-ass cracker" (or words to that effect) might make a jury think that Martin was racist and not Zimmerman. She came off as being rather ignorant and very inarticulate, so what will the jury think? At this point, I really don't know.

The only thing that we can be sure of--which you already touched on--is that we can't be sure of what went on and we'll never know unless Zimmerman is force-fed a sodium pentathol drip.

MacAllister
07-16-2013, 09:32 AM
I'm going to suggest quite strongly that folks not accustomed to regularly posting in the PoC forum take the time to read the stickies in here. Otherwise, carry on.

cornflake
07-16-2013, 10:29 AM
-----

---ME. Pretty sure it will, and there's a lower level of provability working in this sitch, so we'll see what happens.

---ME. That's up to the prosecutors to prove that he lied. He wasn't on the witness stand in the trial--good thing for him, as he would have gotten himself taken apart--but in a civil lawsuit he might have to take the stand.

---ME. Thing is, the dispatcher has absolutely no power to tell him or anyone else to stop. Like, he was really gonna listen? All they can do is suggest stopping and thinking about it.


See above, please. The eyewitness testimony is bunk. We have people saying that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin and two seconds later other witnesses said they saw and/or heard Zimmerman on the bottom yelling for help. They did NOT see nor did they hear what led up to the fight, who started it, or why.

And RJ's testimony will only hurt the case, not help it. Calling someone a "cheesy-ass cracker" (or words to that effect) might make a jury think that Martin was racist and not Zimmerman. She came off as being rather ignorant and very inarticulate, so what will the jury think? At this point, I really don't know.

The only thing that we can be sure of--which you already touched on--is that we can't be sure of what went on and we'll never know unless Zimmerman is force-fed a sodium pentathol drip.

I don't really understand what this post is referring to or debating. I don't understand what saying the dispatcher couldn't tell him what to do or that he didn't take the stand, etc., have to do with what I said.

I also don't understand what case you're suggesting RJ's testimony will hurt or why. It matters if she's credible, not articulate, and she can be deposed for a civil case I'd think.

Marian Perera
07-16-2013, 04:43 PM
However, in a general sense, in an actual case of self defense, that's not true anyplace I've ever heard of; it doesn't matter who the aggressor is, demographically. If a child is genuinely attacking you, or pulls a gun or what have you and you have a reasonable belief that you're in danger (and in some states, if we're talking about deadly force, cannot or already have attempted to retreat - which also applies in any case, regardless of demographics), you're absolutely allowed to defend yourself with the force necessary to do so.

Thanks for clarifying that. I was going to ask why it would be illegal for me to defend myself from, say, a 16-year-old who's trying to assault or kill me.

Not to say that this is what happened in the Trayvon Martin case, just speaking hypothetically.

Kim Fierce
07-17-2013, 01:21 AM
Thanks for clarifying that. I was going to ask why it would be illegal for me to defend myself from, say, a 16-year-old who's trying to assault or kill me.

Not to say that this is what happened in the Trayvon Martin case, just speaking hypothetically.

The most extreme example I know of is the security guards at the juvenile around here. My wife was going to work there and was told that no matter what, she couldn't even defend herself if a juvenile there attacked her. Which seemed extreme, and she didn't work there after all. I think all they can do there is hold them back? I don't know, maybe that's what I was thinking as carrying on into law in other situations, or that if the minor has no weapon you would try to not go for a kill shot or something.

I think Z was lying, too. I heard that he said he got out of his vehicle only to check what street he was on, but that he was in his little addition with only 3 streets and that he lived there, so he had to know what street he was on. There are things that just don't make sense. I kept hearing that he ignored the dispatcher's suggestion to stop following Martin, and now all of a sudden I am hearing the story that he was headed back to his vehicle and had followed the dispatcher's instructions when the altercation occurred.

*ETA: Oh, here's a new headline, bringing gay into it, saying some people are accusing Trayvon of attacking Zimmerman because Trayvon thought Z was a gay rapist stalker. Seems like this is going around in conservative circles who normally wouldn't seem to defend against anything gay-related! *groan

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/new-talking-point-trayvon-martin-was-real-bigot-because-he-thought-zimmerman-was-gay/67235/

Marian Perera
07-17-2013, 03:38 AM
The most extreme example I know of is the security guards at the juvenile around here. My wife was going to work there and was told that no matter what, she couldn't even defend herself if a juvenile there attacked her. Which seemed extreme, and she didn't work there after all. I think all they can do there is hold them back? I don't know, maybe that's what I was thinking as carrying on into law in other situations, or that if the minor has no weapon you would try to not go for a kill shot or something.

Personally, though, if someone attacked me, and if I feared for my life, I would go for a kill shot even if the guy said, "I'm 15!" or even if he was just using his hands.

Because what if I shoot him in the leg, he falls and pulls a pistol out of his waistband? Plus, the leg is a narrower and more difficult target to hit than the chest. Or so I've heard. I haven't done a lot of shooting.

Again, though, that's if I had reason to believe my life was in danger. And unlike Mr. Zimmerman, I'm not likely to go looking for trouble, given that I'm 5'1" and weigh less than 90 pounds. But my size means that even someone without a weapon could overpower me fairly easily, so if I had a gun, under those circumstances I am firing for the center of the body mass.

<--- would not make a good security guard at juvie.

Ken
07-17-2013, 04:56 AM
... mace isn't a bad compromise.
So are some basic judo moves.

Rachel Udin
07-17-2013, 04:59 AM
John Oliver covering for Jon Stewart did a nice little piece on this.

Warning: Hulu Link

http://www.hulu.com/watch/511369?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all

Also pointed to another case at the same time where a woman was in danger, fired a gun in the air to drive off an abusive husband and found the woman guilty.

*sighs*

What his brother said too. O.o; Really? Was that out of context?


... mace isn't a bad compromise.
So are some basic judo moves.

Also not chasing an unarmed teenager for simply walking through your gated community for being black and wearing a hoodie when explicitly told not to chase after him by the dispatcher.

Ken
07-17-2013, 05:06 AM
... just as a general means of defense, I meant.
For anyone wanting to be prepared,
as an alternative to carrying a gun.

cornflake
07-17-2013, 06:50 AM
The most extreme example I know of is the security guards at the juvenile around here. My wife was going to work there and was told that no matter what, she couldn't even defend herself if a juvenile there attacked her. Which seemed extreme, and she didn't work there after all. I think all they can do there is hold them back? I don't know, maybe that's what I was thinking as carrying on into law in other situations, or that if the minor has no weapon you would try to not go for a kill shot or something.

I think Z was lying, too. I heard that he said he got out of his vehicle only to check what street he was on, but that he was in his little addition with only 3 streets and that he lived there, so he had to know what street he was on. There are things that just don't make sense. I kept hearing that he ignored the dispatcher's suggestion to stop following Martin, and now all of a sudden I am hearing the story that he was headed back to his vehicle and had followed the dispatcher's instructions when the altercation occurred.

*ETA: Oh, here's a new headline, bringing gay into it, saying some people are accusing Trayvon of attacking Zimmerman because Trayvon thought Z was a gay rapist stalker. Seems like this is going around in conservative circles who normally wouldn't seem to defend against anything gay-related! *groan

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/new-talking-point-trayvon-martin-was-real-bigot-because-he-thought-zimmerman-was-gay/67235/

I'd guess the thing with juvenile detention has to do with it being detention more than them being juveniles. Same as a prison guard attacked by someone is meant to do everything possible to subdue the person not attack them back - except they'll be even more careful with juvenile offenders, because no one wants that headline.

lolchemist
07-17-2013, 11:37 AM
Rachel Jeantel might have seemed 'inarticulate' because she has a medical condition, a severe underbite that she needs surgery to fix and that will take 1 year of recovery time, which makes it difficult for her to talk according to her interview on the Piers Morgan show. I love that these people can run around screaming about racism like they are so open-minded while being ableist and openly mocking this girl. She is a sweetheart. She really loved Trayvon. Imagine having your boyfriend die right in your ear as he's running away from some creepy dude. In the interview she said she was afraid the man might be a rapist even! Imagine your boyfriend died and you were the last person he talked to and there was nothing you could do to help!

And then, if that's not enough, she has the entire world giving her shit because of what she looks like and what she talks like??? Seriously?? Just... NO.

ellio
07-17-2013, 01:22 PM
Everything's just becoming dull for me, especially after seeing "not guilty." I know you're not supposed to give up, and maybe I gave up a long time ago, but I can't stop feeling hopeless.

I've experienced different kinds of racism from all different kinds of races. The fact that someone died over prejudice, a child died over it, and nothing happened numbs me.

It's all "what's the point?" to me now, you know? But at the same time, I know it's not supposed to be. I'm supposed to be angry or calling for change or something. Mostly, I'm just sad and resigned. I know what my life is "worth," now, as a friend of mine said.

I've been feeling like this. When I publicly complained about it on social networks sites I had white people accuse me of being racist for assuming that George Zimmerman acted due to bias racial stereotypes.

"You're only saying that because he was a white guy"
"You wouldn't be saying that if Zimmerman was black"
"What about the white people that get murdered by black people every day? Why don't you complain about the racism there?"

I'm tired. I'm so tired.

ellio
07-17-2013, 01:25 PM
Rachel Jeantel might have seemed 'inarticulate' because she has a medical condition, a severe underbite that she needs surgery to fix and that will take 1 year of recovery time, which makes it difficult for her to talk according to her interview on the Piers Morgan show. I love that these people can run around screaming about racism like they are so open-minded while being ableist and openly mocking this girl. She is a sweetheart. She really loved Trayvon. Imagine having your boyfriend die right in your ear as he's running away from some creepy dude. In the interview she said she was afraid the man might be a rapist even! Imagine your boyfriend died and you were the last person he talked to and there was nothing you could do to help!

And then, if that's not enough, she has the entire world giving her shit because of what she looks like and what she talks like??? Seriously?? Just... NO.

Also the Juror that Anderson Cooper interviewed said she wasn't a credible witness because she was inarticulate and even mentioned that she may have been inarticulate and self conscious because of a lack of education.

Speaking in AAVE needs to stop being described as "inarticulate", or that it makes people less credible witnesses, and the question the juror should have asked is WHY was she not receiving a good level of education, not slandering her for it. AAVE (african american vernacular english) is actually far more complex and interesting in its history of development than standard English is.

Rachel Udin
07-17-2013, 06:50 PM
For those who can't do judo there is a tazer or pepper spray. Though not looking for trouble might be better overall.

*geek alert*

AAVE was a merging of West African languages with the English language. Originally used by slaves (Which makes it a socio-economic dialect originally, though this clearly changed.) Also developed a little through songs, etc. as well as pure pidgin. It later became a creole and then a dialect.

However, it changed as the population both grew, second generations were born and more children learned English. With the spread came in regionality as well, which means that CA's AAVE is different from VA's AAVE.

Also, I suspect, changed by socioleconomic class as well. Those who became richer also tend to (generally) in society also differentiate their speech.

There is a pretty good demonstration of this in the Ray Charles Movie, which shows the variation of AAVE surprisingly beautifully. From the top producers, pressures and change in location.

However, I have somewhat of a feeling it's two factors that are going into the hate. The first was that it's part of the original socio-economic state. And the second, is that the dominant power group gets to dictate everything about who is in and who is out (which pretty much is a blanket to cover racism and prejudice in general). In this case SAE is actually White American Middle to Upper Class English. Favoring from what is said to be the Western US. Which means anyone outside of it, especially when their group is tied to prejudice is "dumb" and gets the black and white moral treatment.

Sociology/Anthropology dump.

The rest of the "I'm the victim" and blaming the victim--that's psychology. Correlation bias, Optimism bias, definition of deviance, etc. Also lack of exposure to the groups in question. But I'll let a psychologist go into that.

Kim Fierce
07-18-2013, 01:10 AM
"You're only saying that because he was a white guy"
"You wouldn't be saying that if Zimmerman was black"
"What about the white people that get murdered by black people every day? Why don't you complain about the racism there?"

I'm tired. I'm so tired.

I have had people accuse me of the same things, and I am white. (not that I know what race you are, but I think many of these things are said to or about non-white people quite often.)

And yeah I have seen them say but what about this case or what about that case? Yeah what about them, they are different cases. One was someone mad that two people didn't get the death penalty . . . I said at least they actually got found guilty.

I was almost in tears yesterday at work and had to leave the room for a minute. But when I came back I was able to calmly explain some things . . . but there are some things that some people don't want to see. And I think there are some people who really aren't racist, like my wife, and honestly don't want things to be racial issues all the time. But there are others who are still prejudiced.

kaitie
07-18-2013, 03:20 AM
Well, I feel like Trayvon was the one acting in self-defense, too, not Zimmerman. People keep saying it was Zimmerman acting in self-defense . . . for what? Stalking someone and no one knows who really acted first in the situation. I had heard that he was told to stop following Martin and didn't, but now I am suddenly hearing that he was supposedly heading back to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred.

This is what keeps bugging me, too. I mean, just imagining it in my head, if I was a 17 year old kid out walking alone and some guy started following me and harassing me, I'd be scared shitless. Even if he did try to hit Zimmerman, why the hell wouldn't that be considered self-defense?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how you can pick a fight and then get to cry self-defense as a way out of it. You don't get to be the aggressor and the victim.

And the fact that he was on the phone to the police who had told him to leave the kid alone and not do anything, and then he outright defied what the police had told him? Why the hell was this considered acceptable?


I think another problem is we don't know which stories are true, and even someone I was "debating" about it with earlier, who I do give credit for actually saying something about it to my face (and who on my facebook page told me I was only defending Trayvon because he was black and said I was ignoring the evidence) says that both sides of the story we heard are speculation. Then he was talking about Martin's history of marijuana use, but all of that is so irrelevant if he is just walking down the street with no drugs on him. So what does that have to do with anything. I have a history of drug use and very close connections with dealers myself I'm not going to say someone deserves to die because they were walking down the street and Oh it just makes no sense! How does that justify ANYTHING?!

*ETA: I think this case will probably go federal?

I actually wonder how much of it has to do with the not really knowing more than finding Zimmerman innocent. I mean, a jury can say "not guilty" and mean "we didn't have enough evidence to be 100% certain" rather than "we're condoning what he did," right? At least thinking that makes it a little easier to stomach.

Didn't they also not allow the expert witness to testify as to the voice on the tape? I feel like that was need-to-know information, and I could see not having that information making it a harder decision. That being said, I can't for the life of me understand how he wasn't charged with manslaughter. He killed someone. Knowingly. On purpose. If a person can be put in jail for accidentally hitting a person on the street, how can pulling a trigger and killing a kid after such a debacle not be manslaughter?

Honestly, a lot of things about this case upset me to the point of feeling ill. It also, fairly or unfairly, makes me never want to go to Florida.

Btw, I'm not sure I understand how it can be federal. Is it not consider double jeopardy?

cornflake
07-18-2013, 04:58 AM
Double jeopardy prevents someone from being charged with the same offense twice.

He was charged with the murder of Martin, which is a crime at the state level, since it took place within the jurisdiction of the state with no extenuating circumstances.

If this case was taken up by the feds, it'd be a different offense - violating Martin's civil rights.

nighttimer
07-28-2013, 10:19 AM
The other day I received three consecutive responses on my blog to an essay about Trayvon Martin. Not one of them referenced Martin or George Zimmerman, but there was a point.

I just had to get past the rage to find it.

Perhaps you people need to go to Rwanda or the Congo, where Black people enjoy doing this kind of shit, apparently. It's unbelievable in the US, intolerable. IF you HATE white people SO much, just PLEASE , Go to Liberia, where the Freed Slaves set up or LEAVE the US. You dont want to be here, since it sucks for you. Many people are risking their lives to come here, but you hate it and cant make it here, so GO, leave. Get the fuck off the place that hates you. It’s fucking HORRIBLE, so make a raft and go somewhere. If only the Founders had the sense to pick their own cotton! Get off the Island if you can stand not getting welfare, HUD and endless benefits, oh yeah, NOT!

Here's the funny part. This came from someone I know. Someone I considered to be a friend. This unhinged racist rant came from a White woman I've known for over ten years, but now I see I didn't know her at all.

So I fired this friend of ten years for her disgusting remarks. I have no intention of allowing anyone to "Zimmerman" me.

But isn't it strange how the folks screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE!" are the same ones full of all this racially-based animus?

I have become very weary of feeling I must reassert the humanity of Black people and remind White people that yes, we love our sons and daughters just as much as you love yours.

Kitty27
07-28-2013, 11:03 AM
The other day I received three consecutive responses on my blog to an essay about Trayvon Martin. Not one of them referenced Martin or George Zimmerman, but there was a point.

I just had to get past the rage to find it.

Perhaps you people need to go to Rwanda or the Congo, where Black people enjoy doing this kind of shit, apparently. It's unbelievable in the US, intolerable. IF you HATE white people SO much, just PLEASE , Go to Liberia, where the Freed Slaves set up or LEAVE the US. You dont want to be here, since it sucks for you. Many people are risking their lives to come here, but you hate it and cant make it here, so GO, leave. Get the fuck off the place that hates you. Itís fucking HORRIBLE, so make a raft and go somewhere. If only the Founders had the sense to pick their own cotton! Get off the Island if you can stand not getting welfare, HUD and endless benefits, oh yeah, NOT!

Here's the funny part. This came from someone I know. Someone I considered to be a friend. This unhinged racist rant came from a White woman I've known for over ten years, but now I see I didn't know her at all.

So I fired this friend of ten years for her disgusting remarks. I have no intention of allowing anyone to "Zimmerman" me.

But isn't it strange how the folks screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE!" are the same ones full of all this racially-based animus?

I have become very weary of feeling I must reassert the humanity of Black people and remind White people that yes, we love our sons and daughters just as much as you love yours.

I've seen this as well. This is why I much prefer the out and proud racists from the good old days of skinheads marching in Forsyth County. They are far easier to deal with than the undercover ones.

I don't attempt to reason with racists. Their thought process isn't receptive to such a thing. To be blunt,they can kiss the fattest part of my behind. When you live in a world of privilege and add to that, a racist one,it becomes impossible to think or behave towards people of color with sense. The fact that in Black on Black crime,the perpetrator is often caught and sent to jail escapes her. Or the fact that the genocide in Rwanda was due to a civil war and not some natural behavior of Black people. Or the fact the Native Americans might have something to say about sending her back to Europe. Or her belief that Blacks receive enormous amounts of government aid. There is just a whole lot of WTF in that post.

We love our kids and Trayvon's death is a sad case amongst many that we have to teach them about. It's to the point that people actually believe Black kids dress in a "threatening" manner and if they didn't,they wouldn't be bothered. Never does it occur to them that a Black kid can dress like Carlton Banks and STILL be profiled solely for their race. Nor do they see that their kids mimic the same fashion and can go about their business solely because they aren't Black.



Luckily,since this horrendous but expected verdict came out,there have also been a fair amount of people of all kinds restoring my faith in humanity. This case has allowed racists to show their natural behinds,but an equal amount of people have shown humanity and solidarity. I have to take some solace from that.

Yorkist
07-28-2013, 12:50 PM
I'd just like to jump on the WTF-is-wrong-with-people bandwagon. Like many of you guys, this case and its aftermath has made me decide to stop providing a couple of people with the pleasure of my company. One dude I know was all, "I think Travyon was a little thug." What the hell, you don't get to kill people because of snap judgments you make about their character, and frankly it wouldn't matter if he was the youngest ever organized crime boss, he still shouldn't have been murdered by some douchecannon with an entitlement complex and a power trip for the crime of walking down the street.

I don't know if all y'all have seen the "I am not Travyon Martin" tumblr/facebook meme or not, but there are some nice responses out there if you're in need of a dose of feeling good about humanity. I wanted to make one, but finding a hoodie in July is apparently an impossible task.

fivetoesten
07-28-2013, 04:03 PM
snap judgments you make about their character

some douchecannon with an entitlement complex and a power trip

hmmm.

Lavern08
07-29-2013, 01:22 AM
... I have become very weary of feeling I must reassert the humanity of Black people and remind White people that yes, we love our sons and daughters just as much as you love yours.

*SIGH* :(

CWatts
07-29-2013, 02:37 AM
...frankly it wouldn't matter if he was the youngest ever organized crime boss, he still shouldn't have been murdered by some douchecannon with an entitlement complex and a power trip for the crime of walking down the street.


This. I keep feeling like I have to shake some people to remind them of the concept of Due (F---ing) Process. Sadly that does sometimes let criminals, like Zimmerman, get away with it because the prosecution botches the case and because there are assinine laws like Stand Your Ground.

Also, I really love the word douchecannon.

Yorkist
07-29-2013, 09:30 AM
hmmm.

Um, yeah, you know what? Leaving aside for a second that I haven't killed anyone, this isn't a snap judgment. We know from pre-trial events and the public record that Zimmerman is (1) a manipulator, (2) a liar, and (3) a domestic abuser. Douchecannon, to be sure. And, yes, someone has to have an entitlement streak a mile wide to believe that he has the right to follow, harass, and "question" people just for being on the street. Speaking as a woman, who has been followed, harassed, and "questioned" by man-children on the street at night? These are entitled dudes. On a power trip.

And, oh yeah, I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE.


Also, I really love the word douchecannon.

Thank you. :) Doucherocket is a nice one, too.

nighttimer
08-21-2013, 02:00 PM
Saw this and wanted to share: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/political-ad-re-enacts-trayvon-martin-shooting?ref=fpb)


A web video released this week by a group opposed to "stand your ground" laws includes a dramatic re-enactment of the Trayvon Martin killing.

The video, which was released Monday (http://csgv.org/releases/2013/csgv-releases-psa-calling-on-americans-to-stand-up-to-stand-your-ground-laws/) by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, includes real recordings of 911 calls made by the man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, as well as a neighbor on the night of the killing.

As the calls play, actors portraying Zimmerman and Martin are shown on the screen. The ad, which was entitled "Stand Up To Stand Your Ground," ends with Martin shown laying on the ground in his famous hoodie as the camera pans up to reveal other young men in hoodies labeled with the names of states that have so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws.

"Our laws should protect victims. Not create more," says text that flashes across the screen at the end of the ad.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence also created a website (http://csgv.org/action/stand-up-to-stand-your-ground/) in conjunction with the video that attributes the existence of "stand your ground" laws to the "National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council."

And naturally Sean Hannity hates it (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-guests-attack-stand-your-ground-psa-hysterical-primitive-and-exploitative/) which makes me like it even more.