I respect your input because of what you accomplished...where you toiled. I must sound like the wurst lib (mmmmm ) but I have worked and lived in the black community here for 20 years...as it slowly changes under the crush of pacific rim immigration.
Housing, forced housing and Redevelopment...you guys would love to hear the stories of the black activists in my neck of the woods - the real story of the Hunters Point Shipyard; the blacks that were betrayed in Concord CA loading a ship with dynamite; I wasn't in Selma, but I have been a good neighbor and businessman in this community; pitching in at a grass roots level; helping speak in front the SF board of Supervisors and the SF Planning Commission; hosting Lennar Builders before the Redevelopment act was barred from California.
Also, I am saying is that if your face was close enough I would tattoo your nose for talking out of turn. You should take it back.
With that said, I am a pragmatic realist. If one has a history of unprovoked violence and/or other violent acts, IMO that is imformation a jury should know and hear in a case where the primary defense is that the victim in fact engaged in unprovoked (or provoked but unjustified) violence.
If M. did, in fact, deck a Bus Driver as has been reported (although not apparently verified), it speaks to his character and way of doing things, and casts material and logical doubt on any prosecution claims that he was just a sweet little non-violent angel, walking home desperate to suck down skittles while feeding poor people and walking little old ladies across the street.
It simply seems unfair that Z. can be denoucned in the Jury's mind for being a "wanna be cop" as if having a desire to serve the public is somehow equal to a desire to hunt down and murder in cold blood black kids. Yet the same Jury who can hear that evidence cannot hear that M. may have engaged in exactly the kind of violence the Defendant claims he did, and could make or break his defense.
There are far better and more clear cut examples of injustice towards minorities than this case and public outrage would be better served on those. There are simply too many questions surrounding the events of that night to make this case a symbol of racial inequality. But for a multitude of reasons - misinformed public, social media warriors, blowhard race baiters, white apologists in the liberal media, etc - it has become a symbol.
I guess we all belive what we believe. Having been in Zimmerman's shoes, jumped and beaten by those you seem to have an endless sympathy for, my own bias clearly falls towards Zimmerman (who, none-the-less, is a idiot).
Reading your posts, it sounds like you'd say I, a young white man at the time, probably deserved to be beaten by a gang of black and hispanic youths, as pennance for the sins of other white folks fathers (my own family of course not having come to the U.S. till the 50's).
There was a pretty large contingent in this country that wanted to see Obama become president simply because he was black. I can't think of a much worse reason to elect someone ruler of the free world, but it is what it is.
Similarly, I don't think the facts in this case matter to many people as much as the "message" a ruling would send either way. If Z gets off (rightly or wrongly) it's an unacceptable statement of where race relations continue to struggle in this country, and whatever backlash may result is not only understandable but justified. Conversely, if Z is convicted (rightly or wrongly) we will have taken another step toward race equality, and we'll just let the end justify the means.
And I don't see it getting better any time soon . . .
With all my scattered posts you missed where I said "we have to be the peace and security in our environment". I am all over tonight; beg pardon.
Anyway Zimmy chose to NOT do this. He was over-matched.
The posturing by fringe African Americans I brought up as an example of the smoke I see building in this case. Since Zimmy was also (I believe) an "agent of the government" in some fashion, the authorities have to make it obvious that this behavior will never happen again; only trained LEO personnel should even be in that position.
I don't think they should waste Zimmy's life, although the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the behavior. It needs to be held up as an example of behavior that will not be tolerated, EVER.
And I would like to credit Martin's parents for coming out and saying that they do not wish race to be injected in the case and it's outcome. Even if they don't feel that way I think it was good of them to say that. So if for any reason maybe those with the pitchforks should put them down out of respect for a grieving mother.
Which behavior shouldn't be tolerated? Asking a stranger why he is looking into the windows of your neighbor's houses? Protecting yourself with a legal gun when you are jumped?
What could "we have to be the peace and security in our environment" mean other than we should be able to question someone who is suspicious in a neighborhood that has had a lot of break-ins?
Now as far as this case goes, could Zimmerman have been the first to provoke Martin? Sure but the evidence doesn't show that IMO. If someone asked me what I was doing somewhere (even why I was a brash kid) I would have made a sarcastic remark at worst and kept on walking. Hitting someone or stopping to argue would NEVER have crossed my mind. If I saw a gun I would have broken the world record in the mile run. As horrible as it is that Martin died I believe his actions are at least as responsible for the outcome as were Zimmerman's.
Its all peace, love and understanding until the activist resume is challenged, isnt it?
Your position is that CHurchill does not possess your deep roots in the black struggle, (i.e. having not experienced Jim Crow personally like you have... due to what you've heard from someone else...) and therefore his position is somehow not as supportable?
No one here is suggesting that black citizens werent betrayed on many levels by the government years ago. We understand that the after-effects linger in the dysfunction we still see...
What we are suggesting is that 2014, one shouldn't have to tip-toe around blatant truths, one of which is that the welfare state, racial demagogues and hand wringing lib "do-gooder" apologists.... have also done irreparable harm...and virtually stalled any social progress in large segments of minority culture.
One doesn't have had to witness Jim Crow personally....to see that, friend.
The precedent this sets is......don't apply to be a cop, because it WILL be used against you in any criminal case later, where your desire to help and serve your community may be twisted into you being a wanna-be Death Stalker.
I would argue that his desire to be a cop and status as a Neighborhood Watch dude is irrelevant to the supposed "motive" of racialy profiling a young black child to hunt down and murder.When it comes to Zimmerman, the issue of intent and motivation requires bringing in any evidence that is directly relevant to his action that night.
Fact is, if Z. wanted to hunt down and murder some random black kid, it's doubtful he'd do it in his own neighborhood, or do it in such a way that would permit him to be beaten up first, or would lead to him being found with the body.
After all, the prosecution has painted him as well aware of the law and police procedures......one with that knowledge does not knowingly put themselves in the spot Z. is in now.
And again, the take away from this line of "Z. past in, M. past out" is to never even think of being a cop, because any such desire can and will be used against you in a court of Law. And **** Neighborhood Watch stuff.....simply buy a shotgun and protect your own ****. Nice lessons.
I don't agree. A failed desire to be a cop nor a desire to help with a Neighborhood Watch, does not IMO speak to motive in "profiling and hunting down a child to murder in cold blood" as is claimed.The areas they have brought in are specific to his actions and statements that night.
If it DOES speak to that, then every cop in America and every person whose applied (but failed) to become a cop is now instantly a suspect in any crime, because after all, wanting to be a cop is apparently "motive" for hunting down and shooting kids, right?
Better stay away from green32.
I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?
So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?
Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".
I don't know why the defense is cross-examining the family. It only serves to make the defense look bad. The audio expert has already testified that there is listener bias meaning that both families will likely claim the voice on the 911 tape is their loved one.
Keeping the family on the stand just keeps the emotions stirring in the courtroom. Female jury.
The judge is not going to allow anything from Martin's past to be brought into the trial. It will be a fruitless effort by the defense to try to get the prosecution to open the door for that.