Justice for Trayvon?

They also have the right to work to change the laws and to make the American public aware of the reality of life for black teenagers in America. They are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Since you did not specify WHAT laws, I can only assume you are referring to the Stand Your Ground law, as it is commonly called. Even though it was not referenced by the defense in the Zimmerman case.

What change is desired? Should it be illegal for anyone outside of their own home to attempt to protect themselves in any way if they are attacked? Only choice would be to run, if they can? If they are not able to retreat, just take whatever happens?

Or, is a ballpoint pen to the eyes allowed, but use of a firearm of any kind is not allowed?

Other than the generalization that

...black teenagers in America. They are considered guilty until proven innocent.

what specific change is being requested, and how is it supposed to be implemented?

All I see from the complainers is that they don't like the outcome. I don't either, a teenager is dead, and others have been impacted in a major way.

Is potentially making it worse for others in the future an improvement? I don't think so.

I think many changes are necessary, and I don't know how to accomplish them. Maybe ALL teenagers,and others, should be taught that they have to consider, and accept responsibility for, the results of their actions, within reason.

I do not have all, or even any, of the answers. But I do NOT think that the answer is to attempt to come up with a generalized, all situations fit all, solution, based primarily upon race, creed, color, etc., which is what IMO is being attempted here.

Yes, a teenager is dead. One who may have been, in fact, defending himself from someone he perceived as a threat. Why wasn't Trayvon allowed to "stand his ground" and confront the man in the dark who approached him while he was doing nothing more than walking home from the store? I heard many times that Trayvon should have walked away from the confrontation, he should have fled......why?

It is my opinion that whites still expect some kind of deference to them from blacks, for all the protestations of those who claim not to be racist, I still see, and black young men are even warned, that they will be profiled as a potential thug, guilty of being black......or worse, guilty of being black in a white neighborhood.

I understand the protesters anger and disappointment. Like them, I believe that if the races were reversed in this case that a black Zimmerman would have been found guilty of murdering a white Treyvon Martin....perhaps not 2nd degree murder, but for sure manslaughter.

I agree anyone should have the right to defend themselves......Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin, but I also believe that if you were defending yourself BECAUSE you were the aggressor, or instigated the incident, then you bear responsibility for the consequences......you can't just hassle someone who is unarmed then pull a gun and shoot them when they throw a punch........

This white person expects no deference. heck. I don't even see color. Just another person.

Police have arrested four suspects in connection with the beating death of a former U.S. Marine who was found unconscious outside of a party at a Cobb County, Georgia, apartment complex in March.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Iraq.html

Where is the media outrage over this story? Where are the cries of racism? Should we protest? Should Beyonce and JayZ hold rallies? Should Sharpton speak out? Should the President acknowledge this publicly?

A large part of the problem in the Trayvon Martin case is the lack of evidence. We do not know who was the aggressor in the fatal confrontation. The few witnesses there are disagree among themselves.

The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that Martin was on top at the time he was shot. Other details cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the verdict of not guilty.

Should Zimmerman be convicted even when there is reasonable doubt that he is guilty of committing a crime? Is that what the complainers want?

How would that be justice?

jf1acai wrote: A large part of the problem in the Trayvon Martin case is the lack of evidence. We do not know who was the aggressor in the fatal confrontation. The few witnesses there are disagree among themselves.

The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that Martin was on top at the time he was shot. Other details cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the verdict of not guilty.

Should Zimmerman be convicted even when there is reasonable doubt that he is guilty of committing a crime? Is that what the complainers want?

How would that be justice?

I can only speak for myself.......a COMPLETE investigation at the time of the incident (over a
year ago) SHOULD HAVE BEEN required...tox screen on Z, and all other basic evidence recovery
my understanding,it was NOT done and after 4 or 5 hours the case was dismissed because
of Florida's VAGUE and questionable Stand Your Ground law.....THAT is the basis of the complaint....the EVIDENCE in this case was minimal because the investigation was MINIMAL.

Justice would have been served had the case been treated in another manner......instead of
ASSUMING it was Stand Your Ground (with ONLY Z.'s side of the story to close the case)....JMO

archer wrote: Yes, a teenager is dead.............
Like them, I believe that if the races were reversed in this case that a black Zimmerman would have been found guilty of murdering a white Treyvon Martin....perhaps not 2nd degree murder, but for sure manslaughter.

..............

Wrong again.


"His name is Roderick Scott. He’s a 42-year-old black man with the build of a football player. He also holds a New York State Pistol Permit, or he did until recently. In fact, until April of this year, he kept a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol readily to hand. Whether that pistol has been returned to him by now, and whether he still holds his permit (or will again) is anybody’s guess. I don’t know Mr. Scott and have never spoken to him.

Roderick Scott is, to his misfortunate, a resident of Greece, New York — a suburb of the crime-ridden, crumbling city of Rochester, NY. I say this is to Roderick Scott’s misfortune because, were he a resident of a state that leans less perilously to the left, he might not just have endured several months of legal torture, followed by the longest 19 and a half hours of his life.

Back in April, after an argument with his common-law wife, Scott was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what in hell was going on."

http://themartialist.net/?p=306

archer wrote: Well shucks....I think they learned that from the conservatives. Only difference? Liberals throw their tantrums in the towns, and cities....in the streets of America. Conservatives throw theirs in Congress.

And when you say "throw their tantrums in the streets", by that you mean breaking windows, blocking people from getting children to the hospital and punching grandmas in the face when they plead to be let by so their sick grandchild can get to the hospital, right? Got new for you archer - the legislative bodies are the proper place to throw tantrums. Those are the duly elected representatives of the people, remember? We are a nation of laws, not mobs.

What did they expect when they demanded that a man who did no wrong be put on trial? Do they truly want the kangaroo courts of a banana republic operated by a tyrannical government? One has to begin to think that the Democrats do given their collective reaction against a minority member of the populace, who actually viewed himself as one of them, voted for the same president they voted for, was the only person who welcomed a black woman to the neighborhood after she bought her home and tutored black children so that they would have a better education. The FBI found not a single individual who knew that man who believed his actions were motivated by race, that was part of the evidence released by the prosecution before the trial. And yet those who don't know him are to be believed over those that do? The black people who know Zimmerman are not to be believed over the race baiters who never knew he existed until he defended himself from Martin's brutal assault?

Based on the evidence available, it would appear that "Justice for Trayvon" involves punishing an innocent man for a crime he never committed. That's the mobs view of what justice is.

archer wrote: What do they want? They want to bring attention to the fact that our justice system treats the poor and minorities different than wealthy and white That it is helpful if you shoot someone and claim self defense, to be white. That self defense worked for Zimmerman but not for Trayvon. Zimmerman cannot be tried again, they know that, but they have the right in this country to make their opinion known on this subject...... They also have the right to work to change the laws and to make the American public aware of the reality of life for black teenagers in America. They are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Oh, and otis... Your post is one of the most offensive I have read in a long time. Not that you care.

Zimmerman is a minority too, at least as much of a minority as our president is. Why does Obama get to choose and Zimmerman does not? I ask a liberal because they are the ones who are supposed to be inclusive, and tolerant and fighting for the rights of the minorities.

Martin was assaulting Zimmerman, there were witnesses to his assault, the forensic evidence suggested he was atop Zimmerman when he was shot. That is not guilty until proven innocent, that is thoroughly examining the facts and rendering an impartial verdict, which is what our system of justice is supposed to do, as opposed to punishing an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit to placate the mob.

archer wrote: Yes, a teenager is dead. One who may have been, in fact, defending himself from someone he perceived as a threat. Why wasn't Trayvon allowed to "stand his ground" and confront the man in the dark who approached him while he was doing nothing more than walking home from the store? I heard many times that Trayvon should have walked away from the confrontation, he should have fled......why?

It is my opinion that whites still expect some kind of deference to them from blacks, for all the protestations of those who claim not to be racist, I still see, and black young men are even warned, that they will be profiled as a potential thug, guilty of being black......or worse, guilty of being black in a white neighborhood.

I understand the protesters anger and disappointment. Like them, I believe that if the races were reversed in this case that a black Zimmerman would have been found guilty of murdering a white Treyvon Martin....perhaps not 2nd degree murder, but for sure manslaughter.

I agree anyone should have the right to defend themselves......Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin, but I also believe that if you were defending yourself BECAUSE you were the aggressor, or instigated the incident, then you bear responsibility for the consequences......you can't just hassle someone who is unarmed then pull a gun and shoot them when they throw a punch........

Your whole post ignores reality as it exists. In Florida "Stand Your Ground" has benefitted many blacks from enjoying the fate of Zimmerman, being prosecuted for defending themselves. When Zimmerman called the police that night he called because he wanted the police to come out and investigate the presence of a suspicious person in his neighborhood. What made Martin suspicious was the fact that there had been a number of burglaries in the neighborhood recently committed by people wearing dark hoodies who were seen looking into windows. Zimmerman described Martin's actions as if he were on drugs or something. Martin abused drugs, both pot and Lean (liver damage in his autopsy report, remember?), he had been caught with stolen items in the past (women's jewelry in his backpack, remember?) At the trial it was shown that there were 4 minutes that elapsed between the end of Zimmerman's call and the call between Martin and his friend where she overheard him ask why he was being followed, remember? The recorded conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher showed that he had lost all contact with Martin (didn't want to give his address because he didn't know where the guy was, remember?). The evidence, as opposed to the mob's emotions, indicates that Martin, not Zimmerman, was the aggressor and initiated the confrontation that night that led to Martin's death.

Fact of the matter is that Martin's death is an anomoly for a young black man. He is one of the 6% of young black men who was killed by someone who wasn't black instead of the 94% of those who are killed by another black person. There's your racism archer - when a young black man is killed there is only a 6% chance that he was killed by someone who wasn't black themselves. That percentage for whites is significantly greater, about 3x greater by the way. There is a 17% chance that the person who killed a white person wasn't themselves white. Those figures come from the DOJ and the FBI, just in case you were wondering.

The sooner the race baiters stop pretending that this is the 1930's when the KKK was a powerful force in politics and responsible for great injustices, the sooner we can begin to treat people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. That is, after all, what all of us want to see in our Union, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote:
[snip]

Your whole post ignores reality as it exists. In Florida "Stand Your Ground" has benefitted many blacks from enjoying the fate of Zimmerman, being prosecuted for defending themselves.

[snip]

And here's the proof of PrintSmith's statement... change the filter option on this interactive table to race=blacks and click on the "accused" button... surprise, surprise, surprise...

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-grou ... atal-cases

11 convicted, 24 (black defendants claiming SYG) justified, 9 pending.

All cases are black citizens claiming SYG.

archer wrote: Yes, a teenager is dead. One who may have been, in fact, defending himself from someone he perceived as a threat. Why wasn't Trayvon allowed to "stand his ground" and confront the man in the dark who approached him while he was doing nothing more than walking home from the store? I heard many times that Trayvon should have walked away from the confrontation, he should have fled......why?

First of all, it is not illegal to follow or to ask questions... but it is illegal to make an aggressive move against someone who you "percieve as a threat". This idea that Trayvon did nothing wrong is a repeated claim that the facts don't support. There was a four minute period that has not been accounted for and where Trayvon could have just continued home, but he chose not to... from the evidence, he chose to stick around and attack Zimmerman because of a "perceived threat" and Zimmerman then reacted to an ACTUAL threat/attack.

If nobody can show evidence to the contrary, Zimmerman should be charged with nothing.... certainly not for being a racist since he has a history that makes that highly improbable and just believing Trayvon is black does not make it racial profiling. But the race merchants would say they "feel" like that's the case. Innocent until proven guilty trumps feelings and speculation.

And if Trayvon hadn't reacted violently to being followed, would he still be alive today? Probably. He could have just stood there, answered the questions and waited for the police instead of taking Zimmerman down.