So the short fat Latino dude ...

[DanaC]

The prosecution should have tried for manslaughter, not murder.

A year or so ago someone posted a video here of a big kid who had been regularly bullied by a little kid. Big kid was a gentle giant. Little kid was a cocky little gobshite. On this particular occasion the big kid snapped, grabbed the little kid, spun him up and over in wrestling move and slammed him back onto the ground, where he apparently broke his leg (that part of the story was later questioned).

On the evidence of the injuries, the big kid was unscathed, the little kid injured: take away the video camera and close standing witnesses that evidence points to the big kid as the aggressor.

[DanaC]

And incidentally, I have seen one streetfight in which the winner/aggressor was yelling for help. Specifically yelling to 'get her off me!' because it was a fight between two groups of lads and lasses and he really didn't want to injure the girl.

I'd like to say I played my part in that fight, but I was just a gobby cow....never really had the fists to back it up :p

I recognise this is a different scenario, and I really haven't seen enough real fights to know what is or is not 'common' or usual in this regard.

[DanaC]

Wow. I mean, seriously, wow.

Fellow defence attorney West proved the most colourful and controversial character during the trial, opening his case with a questionable knock-knock joke about Zimmerman's notoriety and clashing frequently with the judge.

He also appeared in a photograph posted to Instagram by his daughter Molly showing the family enjoying a "celebration" ice cream after opening statements. The accompanying caption "we beat stupidity" and hashtag #dadkilledit prompted the state attorney's office to demand an inquiry

[gvidas]

Ta Nehisi Coates, at the Atlantic, and Jelani Cobb, at the New Yorker, have done an amazing job breaking down why the entire story -- from the kid's death, to the police's reluctance to investigate, to the smearing of the kid, to the exoneration of his killer -- is a quintessentially American tragedy, entirely rooted in the color of the kid's skin. In short: it wasn't murder, and that's the problem.

I'm having a hard time writing anything that isn't just paraphrasing one or the other of them. So instead of stringing together a bunch of decontextualized quotes that end up hacking apart their stellar writing, here's a few of the pieces that stood out:

Ta Nehisi Coates, "Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice" -- in which he argues that "the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest."

Jelani Cobb, What The Zimmerman Trial Was About -- on fear and correlations.

Ta Nehisi Coates, "How Stand Your Ground Relates to George Zimmerman" -- on the fact that 'stand your ground' and 'self defense' in Florida are one and the same.

Jelani Cobb, "Zimmerman, Everyman" -- "This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger."

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by gvidas

"This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger."

That's powerful.

[Sundae]

L'Oreal need to bring out a lipstick called Zimmerman Blood.
I'm not saying whether the photo is doctored or not... but damn his blood is bright.

[chrisinhouston]

And meanwhile most conservative news sources and commentators/talking heads are rallying behind the not guilty verdict and outcome, some going so far as to accuse Martin of being a dope smoking adict, and a punk thug, etc. I doubt the GOP will pick up any black voters in the near future which will only hasten their demise. And they sure aren't endearing themselves to Hispanics.

[Undertoad]

Ten black guys shot and killed in Philly since Saturday.

Nobody gives a shit about them.

[piercehawkeye45]

I’ve been giving the trial and associated larger issues a lot of thought in the past few days and my conclusion is that this trial is a reflection of two clashing perspectives whose narratives are routinely marginalized by society and/or the media. Since both narratives have been suppressed and this trial directly addressed both perspectives, the amount of attention and the emotions attached to this trial were extremely high. Also, taking power dynamics into account, it is no surprise that Zimmerman, and his narrative, wins the case.

For an initial note, I am doing my best to explain my view of the two narratives in a more or less unbiased manner. I attempt to be brief and many issues are much more complicated than how I explain them. My personal views, thoughts, and experiences can be saved for a later post.

The first narrative is, stereotypically, a particular sub-group of the white middle-class (male) community. This group is fairly well off, prefers to live in safe (possibly gated) communities, and is increasingly worried about safety and crime. I don’t believe that the majority in this group are racists like people were in the 50’s and 60’s, but they notice that a disproportional amount of crime is committed by young black males. Along with being immersed in a racist social environment (we all have) which naturally exaggerates the young black male threat, there is large cultural clash between this group and the young black community. Due to a lack of understanding of the stereotypical young black culture’s dress, music, and mannerisms, it is difficult for them to recognize the small proportion of young black males that are a threat and therefore are much more cautious and fearful around all young black males. This, in my opinion, explains the racial stereotyping that occurs and the “justification” for laws such as ‘stop and frisk’.

This narrative is marginalized because any attempt to justify racial stereotyping, whether valid or not, is considered racist. Since the term racist is essentially equivalent to ‘Nazi’ in the US and the vast majority of white people will not embrace that label, for many legitimate reasons, the push for laws that racial profile are often done quietly and the reasons are often not publically defended.

The second perspective is that of the young black male. Due to some of the reasons stated above, the majority of young black males suffer racial profiling and discrimination due to the inability to differentiate the problematic young black males from the rest of the population due to mannerisms and dress. Therefore, this group routinely gets mistrusted by the general population, get guns pointed at them by police when stopped, and are largely at risk to being sent to prison (largely due to non-violent drug related crimes). This group feels threated by the police and other institutions that are set up to protect the first group because it is largely designed, purposefully or not, to indirectly target them.

This narrative is marginalized from what seems like a combination of typical minority status, annoyance of complaints from the rest of the population, and mistrust.

The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects both narratives because the first group can sympathize partly or fully with Zimmerman while the second group can sympathize with Martin. There were various burglaries in the area, committed by young black men, so Zimmerman was more vigilant of young black men that may be committing these crimes. Martin had relatives that lived in the area and was minding his own business and felt targeted due to his skin color and dress. The fear and misunderstanding from both parties led to a fight that resulted in the death of Martin. Obviously, people from both groups will naturally defend their narrative and this explains why this case became so important to many groups.

While I will strongly argue that both narratives are marginalized, although not necessarily to an equal degree, it is clear that one narrative has complete power over the other. There is a fairly simple reason why these laws exist and why one group has essentially complete control over the other: power. It is the people in the first narrative that control politics. It is people in the first narrative that design police tactics and the ‘Stand your ground’ laws. I do not believe that, in general, the people in the first group purposely create racists laws but they design these laws around their narrative and in their best self-interests. Since they have a monopoly on the power to design and control these laws, the laws will naturally be a reflection of that.

This is obviously not an ideal situation and is an obvious injustice toward the second group. However, since this is based on power and not morals, pointing out this injustice will not solve the problem because people in the first group will not sacrifice their safety for the sake of another group. Also, the targeting of their narrative by liberals will only cause them to be more set in their views. In order for young black men to defend themselves on an institutional level, they need representation.

[sexobon]

When Zimmerman gets his gun back, he should demand the return of his bullet too. He can keep the gun and put the bullet up for sale on eBay.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, that's his lucky bullet. He should have Tonto recycle that into a fresh shell, for the next hoodie that tries to sneak into the shire.

[sexobon]

What size notch do you recommend for the handgun grip?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wouldn't weaken it with notches if he's going to use it as a bludgeon too.

[infinite monkey]

:losersmilie:

[Adak]

The history of "Stand Your Ground" laws, is not something I've studied in detail, but my take on it is this.

Going back before the industrial revolution, people moved at the speed of a horse (usually pulling a wagon or buggy), a sail or rowed boat, or at a walking pace. People moved very slowly, down bumpy and generally unpaved roads, carrying their food, water, and usually, what they were selling, or using as barter, that day: produce, animals, perhaps wood or iron works.

Point is, they had someplace they HAD to get to, and they couldn't just "run away" from any threat they encountered on the way. They had STUFF that would seriously slow them down. A man who felt threatened had little chance of running away to escape the threat, and would lose a substantial amount even if he succeeded, since his animals, cart, wagon, stock in trade, would have to be left behind, to make a quick get away (on just the horse, or by simply running).

Also, there were centuries in England and Europe, where wars were about as common as rain in the Spring. Men were expected or required, to fight in these wars, from time to time. Any man refusing to fight, would be dealt with severely - by his "Lordship", and possibly, by his village peers. If your neighbors had to go and fight, they don't want to have you enjoying home and hearth, instead of fighting with them.

And by God, no man would want to be labeled a COWARD, who ran away from every threat. We may all be sinners, but NOBODY wants to accept the label of COWARD.

[I mention the case of England, because our laws in the US, are based mostly on English Common Law.]

So I believe (and I have not studied this in detail), that "Stand Your Ground" laws WERE the ancient laws or customs, of England. This idea that you are required to run away from every threat, if you can, is a very modern legal requirement.

So Eric Holder is very likely a liar when he says otherwise, to the NAACP convention in Orlando, Florida, this week. He told them what they wanted to hear, just like a good little lying politician would.

If you have info on this, please enlighten me.