Exactly. If the media wanted to be fair and comprehensive it would've long since showed several images of Trayvon. Instead we get him all childlike with soulful eyes. Again and again, continually. Why's that?
Cos they wanted to show pics of an everyday boy doing every day stuff. It's media.They do it with white kids too! It's called 'creating empathy'....unless you think that the media always shows the least empathetic, unflattering, rebellious pics of white kids (who've been murdered or killed) taken straight from their facebook pages of them flipping the finger or throwing up in the street .....you've got zero argument.
He's 17, dead, and wasn't found guilty of anything!. What kind of pics did you want them to show?
Likewise, the media very early on in running this story vetted Zimmerman's character, turns out he's had altercations with the police before, and frequently calls them about suspicious people. Only now are people learning more about Trayvon's character. Why's that?
...Cos Zimmerman followed a teenager in a SUV (well within eyeshot of the kid) while calling the cops, then followed after him on foot after the kid ran away from him (zimmerman said himself on the 911 call "he ran") and did so after the cops told him not to. He also did so carrying a weapon. Later an unarmed kid is dead and Zimmerman isn't arrrested because he said he shot in self defense and the cops say they believe him because he is of good character...... They also tested Trayvon for intoxicating substances but not Zimmerman.....which is unusual. ....and he's not even an official neighbourhood watch! He's self appointed!! So add all that up and it's not surprising there was interest in Zimmerman's so called "good character".
....and what about "Trayvon's character"? Was there anything unusual or criminal about his character?
Rumours and irrational emotional impressions spread quickly, while the truth limps slowly after them. By the time a more even handed account of the case is taken up, too many balls are already rolling, too many people have jumped to too many conclusions and nobody wants to look like the impressionable fool. The media are going to be partly responsible if something happens to Zimmerman or if people are killed by black rioting after this.
"Rumours" you say? A kid was shot on his way home from the shops. He had no weapon on him and zero evidence of committing any crime. The guy who did it wasn't arrested for further questioning. It's as simple as that. Any emotions based on that alone is justifiable.
The newsmen often put their foot in it though. It isn't even a case of them being right or left any more. It's whether they're right or left on a particular issue and what narrative spin they want to put on a story. They like the black victim, white racism angle, even when there are no stated racial motives in a case.
Well the guy had made an insane amount of calls to the police in the past on only black people alone, and while chasing Trayvon he says something that sounds like "f*cking c**ns". Not adding 'racial motivatiation' to the list of possibile motives would be negligent in any investigation regarding this case.
Plenty of opportunity for them to reverse the victim/racist, look at the kid in Kansas City who was recently set on fire by two blacks, it seems for being white. Look at the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom case. Possibly even the two Britons getting shot dead after walking into the wrong neighborhood.
In regards to the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom story wasn't fox news constantly labelling it as a "Black on white crime" trying to turn it into a race issue? What else did you want? a public lynching? Didn't one of them get the death penalty? Also in regards to the child who was burned isn't there an ongoing investigation?.....Unlike the trayvon case in which there was no investigation....hence the public outcry?
Also in regards to children getting burned why didn't the media turn this into a "race crime" to victimise white people? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlYK3jwWZs
...easily done no?
You wanna find racism and creatively read it into situations, like it's something lying there waiting to be found? Well hey, plenty of opportunities, but they only do it selectively when they have a story to tell. Also helps if it's a juicy morsel for the "social justice" circus to jump on.
Seems like the only stories you'll believe are actually "racially motivated" are the ones with white victims.....anything else is just the liberal media "out to get whitey".....where every story of racism on black people is just a black person "playing the race card" in order for the media to demonise poor defensless white folks.
The irony is that the "race card" "poor me, they're all out to get us" sob stories come as much out of the far right than they do any where else!
The shooting of Trayvon happened 26 Feb. No-one was talking about it and it barely got any coverage at all until now. The media only jumped on the bandwagon because of a late gradual online buzz about Zimmerman not being arrested. Otherwise you wouldn't have heard of it. Therefore so much for your "media loves the white racist on black victim" crimes
You'll get no arguments from me in regards to the media being manipulative about news stories but to say "everything about the case seems fine and dandy" just because the media are sensationalists is just plain nonsense. Like I said, the outrage happened long before the story blew up in the news. The media coverage is in response to that.
Besides....it seems to me that you're quite selective about what you believe anyway......media or no media!
Of course it's true otherwise it wouldn't be an issue.
How is it dishonest? It was a photo of him. Yes the photo makes a difference, some people who see the photo of him with his gold teeth showing may come to the conclusion that he some how deserved it without bothering to find out the facts.
So you are arguing that people should be given the chance to "judge a book by it's cover".
Nice point you have there. :rolleyes:
You aren't being honest with yourself if you pretend you don't judge a book by its cover. If he were behind you in a dark alley vs say a granny you'd feel different. Hell, if it were young trayvon vs old travyon behind you in a dark alley there would be a significant difference in how most people would react. Even jesse jackson admitted this. When someone thugs themself up that far there has to be some reason, and we've learned he was both in to drugs, might have been a jewel thief, and was suspended from school. He was clearly not the innocent portrayed by the family.
Also it seems zimmerman wasn't calling the cops 50 times a year, it took 7 1/2 years to call 49 times.. the more that comes out...the less the original story looks to have any shred of credibility.
You aren't being honest with yourself if you pretend you don't judge a book by its cover. If he were behind you in a dark alley vs say a granny you'd feel different. Hell, if it were young trayvon vs old travyon behind you in a dark alley there would be a significant difference in how most people would react. Even jesse jackson admitted this. When someone thugs themself up that far there has to be some reason, and we've learned he was both in to drugs, might have been a jewel thief, and was suspended from school. He was clearly not the innocent portrayed by the family.
Also it seems zimmerman wasn't calling the cops 50 times a year, it took 7 1/2 years to call 49 times.. the more that comes out...the less the original story looks to have any shred of credibility.
That LA Times story does have some interesting points that i didn't know about.
That there had been at least 7 reported burglaries in 7 months in that complex and the police advised the residents to "get a gun" to protect themselves.
Neighborhood watch efforts were doubled after the rash of burglaries and Zimmerman spearheaded the initiative.
Some of the suspects were young black men, but Bertalan(a neighbour) said he never uttered a racist word.
That he had several black friends and relatives.
Police concluded that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was walking to his SUV when the youth appeared in his path, confronting him and punching him.
He(police officer) noticed that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. Zimmerman was placed in the back of a squad car.
"I was yelling for someone to help me," the officer overheard Zimmerman say, "but no one would help me."
You aren't being honest with yourself if you pretend you don't judge a book by its cover. If he were behind you in a dark alley vs say a granny you'd feel different. Hell, if it were young trayvon vs old travyon behind you in a dark alley there would be a significant difference in how most people would react. Even jesse jackson admitted this. When someone thugs themself up that far there has to be some reason, and we've learned he was both in to drugs, might have been a jewel thief, and was suspended from school. He was clearly not the innocent portrayed by the family.
Also it seems zimmerman wasn't calling the cops 50 times a year, it took 7 1/2 years to call 49 times.. the more that comes out...the less the original story looks to have any shred of credibility.
Nothing in that article is new, nothing in your whole post is new. I never read anywhere that Zimmerman called the police 50 times a year, I always read it was over a period of years.
You speak about the "original" story as if there was just one report, there were many. As far as I am concerned the original story is the police call that Zimmerman made and that remains unchanged.
Nothing in that article is new, nothing in your whole post is new. I never read anywhere that Zimmerman called the police 50 times a year, I always read it was over a period of years.
You speak about the "original" story as if there was just one report, there were many. As far as I am concerned the original story is the police call that Zimmerman made and that remains unchanged.
If he walked his dog every night doing neighbourhood watch patrols and called the police once a week what are we supposed to take away from that? considering that the other residents in the complex made almost 10 times more calls to the police?
If he walked his dog every night doing neighbourhood watch patrols and called the police once a week what are we supposed to take away from that? considering that the other residents in the complex made almost 10 times more calls to the police?
I don't know, in fact I don't know why we are talking about this particular point.
i wondered the same thing, racism is racism and i am very dissapointed in obama for ignoring the case of the british guys killed last year.
If we're thinking about the same case, the guy who killed them was arrested, charged and has just been sentenced. Seems like everything was working okay on that one.
Dont mind me, i just got caught up in the google the lie thing and wondered what he was talking about.
Ha, no worries. I think this point has been picked out because it was (A) Likely inaccurately reported by at least 2 news sources and (B) what you said.
You aren't being honest with yourself if you pretend you don't judge a book by its cover. If he were behind you in a dark alley vs say a granny you'd feel different. Hell, if it were young trayvon vs old travyon behind you in a dark alley there would be a significant difference in how most people would react. Even jesse jackson admitted this. When someone thugs themself up that far there has to be some reason, and we've learned he was both in to drugs, might have been a jewel thief, and was suspended from school. He was clearly not the innocent portrayed by the family.
Also it seems zimmerman wasn't calling the cops 50 times a year, it took 7 1/2 years to call 49 times.. the more that comes out...the less the original story looks to have any shred of credibility.
No.....the original story has been obscured by desperate attempts to disprove or prove Zimmerman's guilt and it has also been obscured by desperate attempts defame or validate Trayvons character.
The story is......
A 17 year old black kid was shot. He had no weapon, he was carrying a mobile phone, sweets and a bottle of soft drink. He was minutes away from his dad's house yet none of the police used his phone to contact anyone he may know. His Parents had to wait 3 days before they even found out he was dead. The person responsible for shooting the 17 year old was not held in custody, neither was he tested for alcohol or narcotics (which is standard procedure).....however Treyvon's dead body WAS tested for alcohol and narcotics.
The shooter claimed he shot in self defense and was let go the same night WITHOUT having to prove he shot in self defense...which is unheard of, because if someone is dead and a person claims they killed them in self defense the burdon of proof is on them to prove the person was a threat to their life...they're not let go from police custody without an arrest, an ivestigation or legal defense....especially if at the crime scene the victim has no weapons on his person and no evidence linking them to any crime.
That's the main issue of the story......and that's the reason for the outrage! If you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with that picture then that's up to you, but the injustice isn't about whether Trayvon was a nice kid or a bad kid, or is it about whether Zimmerman was a good guy or bad guy! those things are irrevelent. Those things are for the courts to decide in regards to who is guilty or not. The cries of injustice are about how the case was handled and the main accusation of racism are about racism at the systemic and institutional level, (not the ground level one on one racism). Those are the real issues behind the original public outrage! That a black teenager can die without a proper investigation and whether racial profiling was the reason the case was handled in this way.
What has obscured and diverted the argument is the stuff that you're arguing about. Which then leads people off the issue and into a tangent of defending Trayvon's character, race etc and thus people end up totally forgetting what the main original issue is!
Therefore you need to look a bit closer to home (or at least the place where your getting your arguments from) to find out who is using diversion tactics and "muddying the waters" away from the main issues of the case..
No.....the original story has been obscured by desperate attempts to disprove or prove Zimmerman's guilt and it has also been obscured by desperate attempts defame or validate Trayvons character.
The story is......
A 17 year old black kid was shot. He had no weapon, he was carrying a mobile phone, sweets and a bottle of soft drink. He was minutes away from his dad's house yet none of the police used his phone to contact anyone he may know. His Parents had to wait 3 days before they even found out he was dead. The person responsible for shooting the 17 year old was not held in custody, neither was he tested for alcohol or narcotics (which is standard procedure).....however Treyvon's dead body WAS tested for alcohol and narcotics.
The shooter claimed he shot in self defense and was let go the same night WITHOUT having to prove he shot in self defense...which is unheard of, because if someone is dead and a person claims they killed them in self defense the burdon of proof is on them to prove the person was a threat to their life...they're not let go from police custody without an arrest, an ivestigation or legal defense....especially if at the crime scene the victim has no weapons on his person and no evidence linking them to any crime.
That's the main issue of the story......and that's the reason for the outrage! If you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with that picture then that's up to you, but the injustice isn't about whether Trayvon was a nice kid or a bad kid, or is it about whether Zimmerman was a good guy or bad guy! those things are irrevelent. Those things are for the courts to decide in regards to who is guilty or not. The cries of injustice are about how the case was handled and the main accusation of racism are about racism at the systemic and institutional level, (not the ground level one on one racism). Those are the real issues behind the original public outrage! That a black teenager can die without a proper investigation and whether racial profiling was the reason the case was handled in this way.
What has obscured and diverted the argument is the stuff that you're arguing about. Which then leads people off the issue and into a tangent of defending Trayvon's character, race etc and thus people end up totally forgetting what the main original issue is!
Therefore you need to look a bit closer to home (or at least the place where your getting your arguments from) to find out who is using diversion tactics and "muddying the waters" away from the main issues of the case..
You did a fairly good summing up imo although there are a few points left out.
One is that Zimmerman was part of an ethnic minority himself, one with a history of racial discrimination in the US, but once the media found out he considered himself Hispanic, they turned to using another word, White Hispanic, that fanned the fires of a white/black one on one racism. It could have been, or it could have been one of the 5 or 6 disputes Zimmerman had around anger management.
You could ask why, if the system was prejudiced, Zimmerman got off easy from his first altercation with the cops, that could have been a felony.
Along the same lines, it is terrible to report a child missing and not get an answer, but it is up to the police to show this was not due to institutional racism but to institutionlal incompetence, not for the media to imply this happened because Martin was black. I can think of several examples in which non-blacks had to plead with authorities to do searches. Maybe the negligence was related to Martin being black, but it can't just be assumed.
In addition, it is hard for the public to make legal determinations about what Zimmerman had to prove that night. The police had to determine if they had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That is not the same as proof. Did they do a less thorough job because Martin had darker skin than Zimmerman, or another reason, have to see the facts.
There is a difference between outrage and saying 'wanted dead or alive,' or forcing innocent people from their homes into hotels, that this ballooned into.
You did a fairly good summing up imo although there are a few points left out.
One is that Zimmerman was part of an ethnic minority himself, one with a history of racial discrimination in the US, but once the media found out he considered himself Hispanic, they turned to using another word, White Hispanic, that fanned the fires of a white/black one on one racism. It could have been, or it could have been one of the 5 or 6 disputes Zimmerman had around anger management.
You could ask why, if the system was prejudiced, Zimmerman got off easy from his first altercation with the cops, that could have been a felony.
Zimmerman's dad is a wealthy retired judge. That holds quite a lot of influence. Does that conclusively prove that The investigation was rigged? No. Would it be prejudicial to assume foul play because of this? Of course!... but there is a difference between simply being an hispanic and being an hispanic with a dad who has influence within the system...and in no way disproves systemic and Institutional racism regarding this case.
George could have been a black kid with a influencial white father and still could benifit from the influence his father holds within the system. The power wouldn't have come from George himself.
However the suspicion of "racism" doesn't stem from that ....
According to reports members of the Sanford police have issued a statement saying that George should have been arrested but they were overruled by the state attorney and were told there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's guilt. Which is a bit "backwards" because it should be - "there isn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's innocence".
The crime had already been commited and confessed to. This wasn't about whether George killed Trayvon but whether the killing was justified! and there was zero evidence that could show that George "shot in self defense" without a full investigation!
So the questions you have to ask yourself is why would the state attorney overrule the case without an investigation?
It seems that he would have to have had some pretty low assumptions about the dead kid to believe George's story without evidence and also that there would be no backlash.
The question of whether racial profiling was involved is still valid at this stage.
Along the same lines, it is terrible to report a child missing and not get an answer, but it is up to the police to show this was not due to institutional racism but to institutionlal incompetence, not for the media to imply this happened because Martin was black. I can think of several examples in which non-blacks had to plead with authorities to do searches. Maybe the negligence was related to Martin being black, but it can't just be assumed.
You can't just assume it.....but....in order for the police to believe George's side of the story with no investigation they would also have to assume that the victim was guilty. with no investigation.
So how do you believe a dead 17 year old with no weapon is guilty of threatening the life of his killer (who DID have a gun) without a full investigation? Why would you assume the guilt of the dead guy? Why would you not contact the deceased's family when his phone is in his possession? Why would you test the deceased for narcotics but not the person who killed him? There's a point where "negligence" just isn't enough of an explaination.
In addition, it is hard for the public to make legal determinations about what Zimmerman had to prove that night. The police had to determine if they had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That is not the same as proof. Did they do a less thorough job because Martin had darker skin than Zimmerman, or another reason, have to see the facts.
I'm sorry bollywood but if the police in Sanford can't arrest a guy who shot a person who had no weapons and had no evidence of committing any crime then their system is broken. In fact based on the facts of this case alone no-one could ever be arrested for murder because the police would always have to prove it wasn't self defense first...regardless of how little evidence there is in the killers favour at the crime scene. However we know that is nonsense.
Which is why the argument of racism has been put forward. Because if a black kid's guilt can be assumed even when he's dead with no evidence or investigation then I think you can forgive black people for believing that if they had shot someone and claimed self defense their a*ses would be locked up until further notice. The suspicion of racism within the police force wasn't just tacked on for absolutely no reason by paranoid black folks. The suspicion is valid regarding this case.
Now you can argue that racism can't be proved at this time and it may or may not be true.... but to not (at the very least) understand the reasons why there is a suspiscion isn't reasonable at all.
There is a difference between outrage and saying 'wanted dead or alive,' or forcing innocent people from their homes into hotels, that this ballooned into.
Agreed.....but it's also dishonest to say that everyone who is outraged wants Zimmerman dead or alive or want people forced from their homes.
The majority of the people protesting simply want justice served. Holding up the extreme cases and using it as an excuse to invalidate the mindset of everyone who is upset with this case isn't fair either.
Zimmerman's dad is a wealthy retired judge. That holds quite a lot of influence. Does that conclusively prove that The investigation was rigged? No. Would it be prejudicial to assume foul play because of this? Of course!... but there is a difference between simply being an hispanic and being an hispanic with a dad who has influence within the system...and in no way disproves systemic and Institutional racism regarding this case.
George could have been a black kid with a influencial white father and still could benifit from the influence his father holds within the system. The power wouldn't have come from George himself.
However the suspicion of "racism" doesn't stem from that ....
According to reports members of the Sanford police have issued a statement saying that George should have been arrested but they were overruled by the state attorney and were told there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's guilt. Which is a bit "backwards" because it should be - "there isn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's innocence".
The crime had already been commited and confessed to. This wasn't about whether George killed Trayvon but whether the killing was justified! and there was zero evidence that could show that George "shot in self defense" without a full investigation!
So the questions you have to ask yourself is why would the state attorney overrule the case without an investigation?
It seems that he would have to have had some pretty low assumptions about the dead kid to believe George's story without evidence and also that there would be no backlash.
The question of whether racial profiling was involved is still valid at this stage.
You can't just assume it.....but....in order for the police to believe George's side of the story with no investigation they would also have to assume that the victim was guilty. with no investigation.
So how do you believe a dead 17 year old with no weapon is guilty of threatening the life of his killer (who DID have a gun) without a full investigation? Why would you assume the guilt of the dead guy? Why would you not contact the deceased's family when his phone is in his possession? Why would you test the deceased for narcotics but not the person who killed him? There's a point where "negligence" just isn't enough of an explaination.
I'm sorry bollywood but if the police in Sanford can't arrest a guy who shot a person who had no weapons and had no evidence of committing any crime then their system is broken. In fact based on the facts of this case alone no-one could ever be arrested for murder because the police would always have to prove it wasn't self defense first...regardless of how little evidence there is in the killers favour at the crime scene. However we know that is nonsense.
Which is why the argument of racism has been put forward. Because if a black kid's guilt can be assumed even when he's dead with no evidence or investigation then I think you can forgive black people for believing that if they had shot someone and claimed self defense their a*ses would be locked up until further notice. The suspicion of racism within the police force wasn't just tacked on for absolutely no reason by paranoid black folks. The suspicion is valid regarding this case.
Now you can argue that racism can't be proved at this time and it may or may not be true.... but to not (at the very least) understand the reasons why there is a suspiscion isn't reasonable at all.
Agreed.....but it's also dishonest to say that everyone who is outraged wants Zimmerman dead or alive or want people forced from their homes.
The majority of the people protesting simply want justice served. Holding up the extreme cases and using it as an excuse to invalidate the mindset of everyone who is upset with this case isn't fair either.
I see what you are saying, but I think it is correct to say 'not enough evidence to prove guilt,' because technically you are not supposed to indict someone if you don't believe it will result in a conviction. Otherwise people could just be harrassed by use of indictments.
If George's father had anything to do with it (although that is speculation at this point) it would be use of influence, and would show that the local police at least were not shoving it under the carpet.
The fact is that the Stand Your Ground law does make it difficult to prosecute some cases, especially in those states where there is no duty to retreat, or flee.This has to be sorted out, was there an altercation, because that is not a legal activity, and not covered by Stand Your Ground. (As I think I mentioned, that law may not end up applying).
I don't agree that a black kid's guilt is automatically assumed, that is where we differ, you can see even the local police did not assume that.
I see what you are saying, but I think it is correct to say 'not enough evidence to prove guilt,' because technically you are not supposed to indict someone if you don't believe it will result in a conviction. Otherwise people could just be harrassed by use of indictments.
A. - The evidence is that he shot someone dead. He's already guilty of that. If the person dead has no weapon that's enough for an arrest and an investigation. otherwise anyone can shoot anyone, claim self defense and walk away. B. - How could the state attorney possibly know it would not result in a conviction without any investigation, full questioning of witnesses, narcotic test on Zimmerman, conformation of who confronted who etc?
The fact that it isn't obvious is the reason he should have been arrested not the other way around!
If George's father had anything to do with it (although that is speculation at this point) it would be use of influence, and would show that the local police at least were not shoving it under the carpet.
I'm not sure what you mean. Wouldn't it show that the local police will "shove it under the carpet" if instructed to do so by people of influence? Even to the point of taking the fall for it in front of the cameras
The fact is that the Stand Your Ground law does make it difficult to prosecute some cases, especially in those states where there is no duty to retreat, or flee.This has to be sorted out, was there an altercation, because that is not a legal activity, and not covered by Stand Your Ground. (As I think I mentioned, that law may not end up applying).
Which is my point! Who of the two was the one standing their ground? shouldn't that have been established before they let him go? It's already established that he was following Trayvon in his vehicle during the 911 call, so if it's shown that he continued following him with a gun on his person, then it wouldn't matter if Trayvon attacked him or not! The "stand your ground law" wouldn't apply to Zimmerman but to Trayvon!...because Zimmerman (being a complete stranger, carrying a weapon and following someone) would be the percieved threat.
As it stands, absolutely nothing was established by the police before they let him go and the guy is now being tried and convicted by the public and the media! If he's innocent i'm pretty sure he wants his day in court!
I don't agree that a black kid's guilt is automatically assumed, that is where we differ, you can see even the local police did not assume that.
Well if the local police didn't assume it the state attorney sure did, or else why would he believe the case wouldn't end in a conviction? Explain what it is about a dead teenager with no weapons that would make a 27 year old with a gun look innocent? Explain how with just the evidence at the crime scene one could come to the conclusion that there was nothing more to know and George was obviously defending himself?
there was zero evidence that could show that George "shot in self defense" without a full investigation!
And there is the real problem - the inability or unwillingness for the Sanford police to do a proper job of investigating the case. From some reports I've seen they didn't even seal off the area where the death occurred, nor did they have Zimmerman medically examined (which when someone has head injuries is essential). Nor did they inform the family of the death. In short they did nothing that any normal person would have expected to have been done. So is NOT investigating violent deaths normal in Florida or the US?
Comments
That was your point though wasn't it? I'm glad you have reached the conclusion it's completely worthless.
Okay then do feel free to expand.
He's 17, dead, and wasn't found guilty of anything!. What kind of pics did you want them to show?
...Cos Zimmerman followed a teenager in a SUV (well within eyeshot of the kid) while calling the cops, then followed after him on foot after the kid ran away from him (zimmerman said himself on the 911 call "he ran") and did so after the cops told him not to. He also did so carrying a weapon. Later an unarmed kid is dead and Zimmerman isn't arrrested because he said he shot in self defense and the cops say they believe him because he is of good character...... They also tested Trayvon for intoxicating substances but not Zimmerman.....which is unusual. ....and he's not even an official neighbourhood watch! He's self appointed!! So add all that up and it's not surprising there was interest in Zimmerman's so called "good character".
....and what about "Trayvon's character"? Was there anything unusual or criminal about his character?
"Rumours" you say? A kid was shot on his way home from the shops. He had no weapon on him and zero evidence of committing any crime. The guy who did it wasn't arrested for further questioning. It's as simple as that. Any emotions based on that alone is justifiable.
Well the guy had made an insane amount of calls to the police in the past on only black people alone, and while chasing Trayvon he says something that sounds like "f*cking c**ns". Not adding 'racial motivatiation' to the list of possibile motives would be negligent in any investigation regarding this case.
In regards to the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom story wasn't fox news constantly labelling it as a "Black on white crime" trying to turn it into a race issue? What else did you want? a public lynching? Didn't one of them get the death penalty? Also in regards to the child who was burned isn't there an ongoing investigation?.....Unlike the trayvon case in which there was no investigation....hence the public outcry?
Also in regards to children getting burned why didn't the media turn this into a "race crime" to victimise white people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlYK3jwWZs
...easily done no?
Seems like the only stories you'll believe are actually "racially motivated" are the ones with white victims.....anything else is just the liberal media "out to get whitey".....where every story of racism on black people is just a black person "playing the race card" in order for the media to demonise poor defensless white folks.
The irony is that the "race card" "poor me, they're all out to get us" sob stories come as much out of the far right than they do any where else!
The shooting of Trayvon happened 26 Feb. No-one was talking about it and it barely got any coverage at all until now. The media only jumped on the bandwagon because of a late gradual online buzz about Zimmerman not being arrested. Otherwise you wouldn't have heard of it. Therefore so much for your "media loves the white racist on black victim" crimes
You'll get no arguments from me in regards to the media being manipulative about news stories but to say "everything about the case seems fine and dandy" just because the media are sensationalists is just plain nonsense. Like I said, the outrage happened long before the story blew up in the news. The media coverage is in response to that.
Besides....it seems to me that you're quite selective about what you believe anyway......media or no media!
You aren't being honest with yourself if you pretend you don't judge a book by its cover. If he were behind you in a dark alley vs say a granny you'd feel different. Hell, if it were young trayvon vs old travyon behind you in a dark alley there would be a significant difference in how most people would react. Even jesse jackson admitted this. When someone thugs themself up that far there has to be some reason, and we've learned he was both in to drugs, might have been a jewel thief, and was suspended from school. He was clearly not the innocent portrayed by the family.
Also it seems zimmerman wasn't calling the cops 50 times a year, it took 7 1/2 years to call 49 times.. the more that comes out...the less the original story looks to have any shred of credibility.
Anyways they finally did some journalism.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-zimmerman-profile-20120329,0,3452783.story
Zimmerman not as portrayed...
That LA Times story does have some interesting points that i didn't know about.
That there had been at least 7 reported burglaries in 7 months in that complex and the police advised the residents to "get a gun" to protect themselves.
Neighborhood watch efforts were doubled after the rash of burglaries and Zimmerman spearheaded the initiative.
Some of the suspects were young black men, but Bertalan(a neighbour) said he never uttered a racist word.
That he had several black friends and relatives.
Police concluded that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was walking to his SUV when the youth appeared in his path, confronting him and punching him.
He(police officer) noticed that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head. Zimmerman was placed in the back of a squad car.
"I was yelling for someone to help me," the officer overheard Zimmerman say, "but no one would help me."
Nothing in that article is new, nothing in your whole post is new. I never read anywhere that Zimmerman called the police 50 times a year, I always read it was over a period of years.
You speak about the "original" story as if there was just one report, there were many. As far as I am concerned the original story is the police call that Zimmerman made and that remains unchanged.
Sorry no its been repeated ad infinitum in the media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116972/Trayvon-Martin-shooting-George-Zimmerman-wanted-cop.html
Look at the date, the lie was repeated over and over....
Google the lie...
I could only find that one news report saying it, and it's from The Daily Mail, not exactly the height of journalistic integrity.
EDIT- And the paper they source it from doesn't say that, or at least they have corrected and/or removed it.
EDIT 2- Never mind I found The Mails Source, still though the vast marjority of articles say years.
I don't know, in fact I don't know why we are talking about this particular point.
i wondered the same thing, racism is racism and i am very dissapointed in obama for ignoring the case of the british guys killed last year.
Dont mind me, i just got caught up in the google the lie thing and wondered what he was talking about.
Well the clue is at the end of the quote.
:rolleyes:
If we're thinking about the same case, the guy who killed them was arrested, charged and has just been sentenced. Seems like everything was working okay on that one.
What should Obama have done, exactly?
Ha, no worries. I think this point has been picked out because it was (A) Likely inaccurately reported by at least 2 news sources and (B) what you said.
No.....the original story has been obscured by desperate attempts to disprove or prove Zimmerman's guilt and it has also been obscured by desperate attempts defame or validate Trayvons character.
The story is......
A 17 year old black kid was shot. He had no weapon, he was carrying a mobile phone, sweets and a bottle of soft drink. He was minutes away from his dad's house yet none of the police used his phone to contact anyone he may know. His Parents had to wait 3 days before they even found out he was dead. The person responsible for shooting the 17 year old was not held in custody, neither was he tested for alcohol or narcotics (which is standard procedure).....however Treyvon's dead body WAS tested for alcohol and narcotics.
The shooter claimed he shot in self defense and was let go the same night WITHOUT having to prove he shot in self defense...which is unheard of, because if someone is dead and a person claims they killed them in self defense the burdon of proof is on them to prove the person was a threat to their life...they're not let go from police custody without an arrest, an ivestigation or legal defense....especially if at the crime scene the victim has no weapons on his person and no evidence linking them to any crime.
That's the main issue of the story......and that's the reason for the outrage! If you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with that picture then that's up to you, but the injustice isn't about whether Trayvon was a nice kid or a bad kid, or is it about whether Zimmerman was a good guy or bad guy! those things are irrevelent. Those things are for the courts to decide in regards to who is guilty or not. The cries of injustice are about how the case was handled and the main accusation of racism are about racism at the systemic and institutional level, (not the ground level one on one racism). Those are the real issues behind the original public outrage! That a black teenager can die without a proper investigation and whether racial profiling was the reason the case was handled in this way.
What has obscured and diverted the argument is the stuff that you're arguing about. Which then leads people off the issue and into a tangent of defending Trayvon's character, race etc and thus people end up totally forgetting what the main original issue is!
Therefore you need to look a bit closer to home (or at least the place where your getting your arguments from) to find out who is using diversion tactics and "muddying the waters" away from the main issues of the case..
You did a fairly good summing up imo although there are a few points left out.
One is that Zimmerman was part of an ethnic minority himself, one with a history of racial discrimination in the US, but once the media found out he considered himself Hispanic, they turned to using another word, White Hispanic, that fanned the fires of a white/black one on one racism. It could have been, or it could have been one of the 5 or 6 disputes Zimmerman had around anger management.
You could ask why, if the system was prejudiced, Zimmerman got off easy from his first altercation with the cops, that could have been a felony.
Along the same lines, it is terrible to report a child missing and not get an answer, but it is up to the police to show this was not due to institutional racism but to institutionlal incompetence, not for the media to imply this happened because Martin was black. I can think of several examples in which non-blacks had to plead with authorities to do searches. Maybe the negligence was related to Martin being black, but it can't just be assumed.
In addition, it is hard for the public to make legal determinations about what Zimmerman had to prove that night. The police had to determine if they had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That is not the same as proof. Did they do a less thorough job because Martin had darker skin than Zimmerman, or another reason, have to see the facts.
There is a difference between outrage and saying 'wanted dead or alive,' or forcing innocent people from their homes into hotels, that this ballooned into.
B. - How could the state attorney possibly know it would not result in a conviction without any investigation, full questioning of witnesses, narcotic test on Zimmerman, conformation of who confronted who etc?
The fact that it isn't obvious is the reason he should have been arrested not the other way around!
I'm not sure what you mean. Wouldn't it show that the local police will "shove it under the carpet" if instructed to do so by people of influence? Even to the point of taking the fall for it in front of the cameras
Which is my point! Who of the two was the one standing their ground? shouldn't that have been established before they let him go? It's already established that he was following Trayvon in his vehicle during the 911 call, so if it's shown that he continued following him with a gun on his person, then it wouldn't matter if Trayvon attacked him or not! The "stand your ground law" wouldn't apply to Zimmerman but to Trayvon!...because Zimmerman (being a complete stranger, carrying a weapon and following someone) would be the percieved threat.
As it stands, absolutely nothing was established by the police before they let him go and the guy is now being tried and convicted by the public and the media! If he's innocent i'm pretty sure he wants his day in court! Well if the local police didn't assume it the state attorney sure did, or else why would he believe the case wouldn't end in a conviction? Explain what it is about a dead teenager with no weapons that would make a 27 year old with a gun look innocent? Explain how with just the evidence at the crime scene one could come to the conclusion that there was nothing more to know and George was obviously defending himself?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RgCA-5ZE8Ag
Wonder what generalizations he'd make from this case...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365112/Horrific-gang-rape-18-men-girl-11-Texas-sparks-racial-tension.html