jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (114 posts)

Robert Zimmerman Stirs the Issue of Racism

  1. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.html

    Clearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still should that protectiveness vilified the victim in spite of the facts?

    With all the statements that he makes with respect to the idea that it is his brother who is the victim and not the young child dead?

    The idea that the dead victim who has been from the beginning Guilty Of Nothing and then set upon by Mister George Zimmerman deserved to be killed? You know what bothers me is people looking for photographs to make young teenage Trayvon Martin a dangerous person such as (oh he's giving the finger so he must be dangerous!) How many times is the finger given on America's roadways? Here is another fact we seem to be overlooking if a genuine criminal has served their time in prison and is now walking the streets that still does not give anyone the right to pursue that individual just because they're walking the streets.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You should probably read your own post carefully, comparing it to that by Robert.  Not that it is racist, but;

      " vilified the victim in spite of the facts?"  You mean the fact that Zimmerman was attacked and smashed to the concrete?  Or the facts brought out in a trial that has not yet happened?

      "With all the statements that he makes with respect to the idea that it is his brother who is the victim and not the young child dead?"  You mean the man that has spent nearly a year in jail because Trayvon attacked him?  Who is the victim again?

      "The idea that the dead victim who has been from the beginning Guilty Of Nothing and then set upon by Mister George Zimmerman deserved to be killed"  Who set upon who?  Who "threw the first punch" by physically attacking the other?

      "genuine criminal has served their time in prison and is now walking the streets that still does not give anyone the right to pursue that individual just because they're walking the streets."  You might consider extending this one to accused, but not proven guilty, people as well. 

      Do you remember early photos of both Trayvon and Zimmerman?  Where Trayvon's pic was of a happy youngster several years younger  and Zimmerman's portrayed a shambling bum of a man?  Did you protest the obvious spin and lie in those pics, too?

      The point is that you have vilified Zimmerman, just as Robert did Trayvon, yet he is guilty only in the minds of a public overwhelmed by racist comments and demands for "justice" without a trial. 

      Do try and remember "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers".  When he is found guilty, though, don't bother with "I told you so!" because right or wrong there is still no excuse for assigning innocence OR guilt before the trial is over.

      1. Gcrhoads64 profile image96
        Gcrhoads64posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, a young man who did nothing. If some crazy guy was following me, I would fight back, too. I wish Trayvon had had a gun to protect himself.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ever had a store security rent-a-cop "stalk" you?  Follow you around the store?  Or another employee stay at your elbow, asking if you need help?  Your use of the term "stalk" is far, far different from what went on that night.

          "If some crazy guy was following me"  Martin had exactly the same reasons you do to declare Zimmerman was insane - zero.  Or do you have evidence Zimmerman was schizophrenic?  Was he bipolar?  Did he have depressive disorder?  Is he a kleptomaniac? What makes you claim that Zimmerman was insane and what is your diagnosis outside of "crazy"?

          More of the same, then - statements about what happened with zero evidence to back it up.  A complete lack of actual knowledge coupled with a willingness to judge and convict without every knowing what happened.

          Thank GOD our justice system doesn't work that way.

  2. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    The idiot said blacks are dangerous.  I bet Zimmerman thought the same way when he stalked Martin.

    1. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Clearly something motivated George Z. to pick a Black kid walking down the street doing nothimg wrong only to be killed.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We may never know what Zimmerman was thinking, but he'd called in numerous "suspicious persons" in the past. Zimmerman's brother probably DOES see Zimmerman as the victim, just as Martin's family sees Martin as the victim.

        Was Zimmerman "profiling"? Maybe, but to know if he had a legitimate reason to do that - we'd have to know the racial percentages of criminals vs. victims in that specific neighborhood. If there was a rash of young black men breaking into houses, Zimmerman certainly might have profiled Martin.

        But profiling and racism are two very different things.

        The young black boys that shot the baby in the face might have been profiling the woman, thinking "whites have all the money," but that wouldn't necessarily make their crime a racist crime or a hate crime.

        Sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes, there are many shades of gray.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, he could not profile no matter what. 

          It's illegal to be a vigilante, whether you are accusing a white, black, mexican, whatever race.  The 9/11 dispatcher told him to stop following Martin, and Martin's cell phone audio shows he was afraid Zimmerman was trying to hurt him when he told his girlfriend someone was following him.  What kind of person carries a gun around and stalks people they find suspicious?  One that is looking for a fight.  The police also didn't test Zimmerman for being drunk, but they did test Martin for drugs! http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin … VeLRxyUQ4o

          Additionally, how can you rule out that Martin wasn't acting in self-defense?  Pathetic to defend such a douchebag.  Even my conservative dad doesn't do such a thing,and he hates almost everything liberal.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Gimme a break. People profile all the time whether you admit it or not. And it's legal. Profiling is a mental process based on available knowledge. Do you know that police departments hire actual "profilers" for just that reason? Remember - in this nation - it's "innocent before proven guilty in a court of law."

            I didn't say Martin wasn't acting in self-defense. There's no way for me to know if he was or wasn't. But, don't get your heart set on that girl's testimony - she's already lied more than once under oath.

            Many big-time legal minds have said that the case against Zimmerman is very weak. I don't care one way or the other as long as the man gets his day in court. None of what you said is actual evidence - it's all just your opinion. You're entitled to that - but don't feel bad if the courts don't agree with you.

            If Zimmerman is found guilty - I hope he rots in jail, but no man in this nation should be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Okay.  Racial profiling.

              Lets see what happens when someone stalks you, and then confronts you with a gun, and you fight back, and then get blamed for fighting back.  That's rational...

          2. Seth Winter profile image80
            Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Anyone else notice that Sooners video showed Trayvon Martin as a 12 year old? Would that be the media profiling? All whites are racist?

            http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploa … -news2.jpg

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know you could possibly draw the conclusion from that video that all whites are racist.

          3. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            HowardB,

            Profiling even by law enforcement has been deemed in the past in numerous situation as in fact being racist.

            Generally when one garners attention or suspicion there at Least Needs to Be a Probable Cause. Seeing Someone Walking down the Street Minding Their Own Business Is Not Probable Cause-No Matter What Lies You Tell Yourself about That Individual or Individuals.

            The fact that Blacks or other minorities may be committing a crime does not automatically state that the next minority one encounters must be the perpetrator-that my friend Is What Is Known As a Racist Perspective.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              SStar - profiling doesn't mean blaming things on black people. It means using statistics to determine who is consistently committing a specific type of crime and being aware of the increased risk. Obviously a person must be judged on their own merit.

              Profiling is an actual science. More white people abuse cocaine - more black people abuse crack. More white people are serial killers, more blacks are in gangs.

              Anything that is the truth isn't racist. We can't sweep things under the carpet just because we don't like them.

              We have a low black graduation rate. If we ignore that - we're doing blacks a disservice. We have a higher black unemployment rate as well.

              Until you can embrace the facts of any matter - you can't be a vehicle for change.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                HowardB,

                Your perception of profiling is just that your perception. The facts are profiling has been used consistently to label and especially black minorities as being this or that.

                Once one has established a stereotype which is what profiling does then take for example cases which have been used when a police officer sees a black man in a very expensive vehicle been the act of profiling says that that car was stolen because it is occupied by a black minority this kind of thinking is called racism because once the officer stopped the vehicle for no other reason than the driver is black only to discover that the driver is someone like Mister Will Smith who has been profiled and basically stereotyped-Racism.

                You know a white person can drive an expensive car or a white person can drive an inexpensive car-No Big Deal not the same for minorities.

                It is not my voice alone which singles out profiling as racist, perhaps some research in a number of these minority groups would enlighten you as to the effects of profiling. If one is not among those who are being profile then they can see no problem with it.

      2. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness,

        I have read my own post carefully and the facts are as I have revealed them. The repeated statements you have written of those coming from a killer where is your proof beyond the words of that killer that justifies your remarks?

        How is it that an innocent child walking the street doing no wrong, bothering no one can wind up dead by some stranger in violation of the law itself by intervening in this person's life for absolutely no reason.

        All the conjectures that were made about this child were all lies by some deluded illusion in the mind of this so-called neighborhood watch individual..

        No, my post stands firm in the facts that are evident that this child has no logical reason for being dead from someone who I personally believe with the problems they were having in their life had no business being in a neighborhood watch program where he is a threat to society.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You repeat the error, while claiming it is no error at all.  That you were there, looking down and watching what happened and thus know the "facts" beyond a reasonable doubt. 

          I'm sure your post stands firm, but that doesn't make it right either factually or ethically as you were not, in fact, watching the incident unfold.  You continue to play judge yourself instead of allowing that all-important "jury of peers" to do the job.

          I disagree and will continue to do so - your post is no different at the root than that of Robert.  At least he has the excuse of protecting a loved family member from the vagaries of a society of people willing to judge, convict and punish without a trial - what is your excuse for making such statements?

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness,

            When presenting the facts one need not be judgmental for they are proven evidence.

            As shocking as it may sound should someone for whatever reason decides to approach me and attacked me I don't necessarily need to get his background or his reasoning to feel justified in vilifying some stranger who threatened my life. His reasoning could be he's having a bad day-(frankly I don't care) that doesn't give him a reason to intervene in my life.

            Fortunately people did not let this situation continue the way it had otherwise the killer of this child would be walking free and young innocent Trayvon Martin would simply be another statistic in a wrongful death.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Proven evidence"?  Such as the doctored 911 tape from NBC?  Such as the repeated declarations that Zimmerman had no injuries and did not receive any care?  You don't have one piece of "proven evidence" - not one shred of it has been examined in a court of law and found to be correct. 

              That's what a court of law is for; to judge the evidence.  You may disagree, and claim that all evidence "proving" Zimmermans guilt is valid and all evidence "proving" the opposite is false, but that's not what courts do.  Thank goodness.

              All you have is opinion of what evidence is correct and what is a lie.  An opinion made without interviews, without seeing or hearing it, without anything more than listening to the media.  An opinion made by "judging" only evidence showing innocence - any that shows guilt need not be judged.  An opinion you are only too glad to share with the world, just as Robert did, to "stir the pot" just as he did.

              Thank goodness you won't be serving on any jury where I am being charged - you haven't the foggiest idea of what "impartial" means.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This may come to you is an absolute shock but generally on many of these jury cases the jurors are often not given all the facts and thusly judgments are made based on speculation and opinions

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  True - they often do not get all the facts.  Any juror, however, that will make a determination "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on speculation and opinion needs shot themselves.  They're playing with a person's life, based on prejudice (not meaning racial) and speculation. 

                  Just as, apparently, Zimmerman did when he approached Martin based on a speculation that Martin didn't belong there.  And, although your own opinions and speculations will carry virtually no weight in a trial, just as your own unsupported "facts" do when you post them as fact in a public forum.

                  Is that really the company you wish to keep?  That of jurors, Zimmerman (either one) or others that encourage speculation and opinion to replace proven facts in determining a person's future?

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps there are those like you who either can't or refuse to address issues which of the sees as obvious so much time is spent convening the committee, setting dates or what have you the reality is though things are sometimes just as they seem. If I want to see the effects of gravity I do not need to go through Einstein's history notes I can simply stand on the edge of a cliff and drop all rock.

                    As much as one would like to think that we are doing good by coming together as a jury to rectify a problem my experience on a few of these jury trials was that for the most part many of the people didn't want to be on the jury, secondly some people had businesses they wanted to get back to so they were prepared or rather desired a quick judgment. There were other jurors looking forward to going to some sporting event and this jury trial was going to interfere with that.

                    I'm afraid many of these jury trials are not the benevolent event that we want to make them out to be.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      If you want to see the effects of gravity, drop a rock, yes.  If you want to see what happened that night you will have to wait for the evidence to come in; although you have already "dropped your rock" by picking and choosing what evidence supports a pre-formed opinion, it just makes that opinion worthless.

                      Juries -again correct  Many jury trials are not the benevolent event we want them to be.

                      Still far, far better than an opinion of someone sitting 1,000 miles surfing the web for anything negative to reinforce their opinion.  Of the two, I absolutely know which I would rather have making a decision for my future.  (Truthfully, most accused are probably better off going without a jury.  Unless they're guilty, anyway).

                    2. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Often not but that is what they should aim to be.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness also defended the cops who did this (WARNING, link contains graphic photo of disabled man who was beaten to death by three cops):

          http://rt.com/files/usa/news/force-thom … ramos-169/

          Seems to be his thing, defending people who kill unnecessarily.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct, at least to a point.

            I will always defend the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and will always scorn the idea that guilt can be determined by race (Zimmerman, white, killed a black so he's guilty of murder) or a few snippets from the media.  Only fools make their minds up from such things.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, innocent until proven guilty.  However, sometimes it takes an outcry from the citizenry (as in the Steubenville rape case, the Zimmerman shooting, and the death by beating of an unarmed disabled man) to even get the perpetrators to be considered for arrest, much less to trial.  Authorities would sometimes rather look the other way than risk their beloved institutions coming under fire, and that is just plain wrong.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah - I remember the "outcry" from the public about Zimmerman.  The doctored tape, the insistence that he was simply out looking for a black boy to kill.  That absolute "fact" that he was uninjured and never treated.

                People would rather ignore facts in favor of their own prejudices in spreading the rumors.  Which makes finding impartial jurors nearly impossible after the outcry, but of course that's the point.  If a huge hue and cry can convict without evidence that helps get the "right" decision from the court, after all.

                There are people that believe in what our justice system is supposed to be, and there are those that want what they want and to hell with evidence - spreading emotion, lies and insinuations is all part of the deal to get a conviction, justified or not.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And what happens if you are wrong after it all comes out in the trial?

                  We don't know about either side... wait until the trial.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not wrong.  Period.

                    Whether found guilty or innocent he will have had a trial, hopefully without being influenced by the maddened mob, and that's only right.  There is no right in a bunch of vigilantes.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My point is that there would have been no trial in any of those three cases without the public outcry.  Get it? 

                  Interesting that you refer to mere public sentiment about a shooting as "vigilante" while defending an actual vigilante who took it upon himself to follow an unarmed kid and shoot him.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can only speak for the Zimmerman case, but there is little to no doubt that there would have been a trial.

                    Yes, the public demanded that he be jailed on the spot, and was extremely vitriolic when he was not, but there is no reason to think that public demand that he be hanged resulted in the arrest.  Public demand may or may not have resulted in other arrests, but to then declare that this one would not have happened without it is without basis or evidence.

                    What is it PP, that makes you think I defend Zimmerman?  I don't.  I just condemn and scorn people that decide guilt based on media, their own racism and prejudice.  Look back on these forums a year ago and you will find that Zimmerman absolutely left his house to find a black kid to kill.  You will find that he was absolutely never injured.  You will find that it was illegal to walk the streets himself.  Anyone saying such things, let alone going public with it, deserves nothing but scorn.  They certainly don't deserve to be listened to,

                    And that most definitely includes "Seems to be his thing, defending people who kill unnecessarily".  You have no idea whatsoever if it was necessary or not.  You weren't there, you haven't talked to anyone that was and there has been no sworn court evidence either way.  You nevertheless declare that it was unnecessary, and deserve only to be ignored or scorned as a result.

                    1. Xenonlit profile image60
                      Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      He stalked and murdered a kid in cold blood. U.S. should have ended "wet foot/dry foot" 30 years ago and this would not have happened. Racist Cubans. Go figure.

    2. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
      Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years ago

      https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDpMEmBVbJNPSxA2HB_-2PQZKD9pZkkoJDt0DYCb2Y9FBeZOi0tQ

      1. Seth Winter profile image80
        Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7848434_f248.jpg


        As Jeff the poster would say...there fixed it for you.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          Apparently you can't tell black people apart either, (how surprising) that is one of the many fake photos of Trayvon which are not of him, other fine white gentlemen like yourself have trolled about to find photos of scary black people to convince yourselves you are in the right. Your posts on this thread are sickening.

          http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

          The website that posted that photo issued an apology for putting the wrong person in the photo, of course you swallowed it whole.

          1. Seth Winter profile image80
            Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well...even if this is a fake (and I'm not saying it is) the media only shows a picture of Trayvon as a 12 year old...where's a picture from the last 5 years?

            Denial is a sick thing Josak.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The picture is fake, even the posters have apologized, it's a 28 year old rapper. Which you of course bought hook line and sinker because #1 you have no interest in checking your sources or facts #2 because it fits your racist image of what a young black man who got shot must look like.

              The reason the images first released were old is because parents stop taking so many photos of their kids as they grow into teenager hood, I have tons of albums of my kids when they are children, hardly anything from their teens.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would have to doubt that reason for using an old photo.  Any media site worth anything at all would either publish a current one or not publish at all.  Or, just possibly, publish an old one with a clear disclaimer that it is years old.

                No, the purpose of publishing a pic of that cute little boy was to vilify Zimmerman as a racist murderer.  Plus, of course, rake in the $$ from advertisers loving the high readership numbers.

                Pandering to the racists that think the only reason to kill any black person is because they're black.  Did you fall for it?  About half the country seems to have...

              2. Seth Winter profile image80
                Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So you mean to tell me Josak that Trayvon Martin didn't have a driver's license photo or that his facebook photo was of him when he was 12? Especially in the world of today, what teenager doesn't have a bunch of pictures of themselves with all the camera phones....

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know if the 17 year old has a drivers license, many parents cannot access their child's facebook so they released old photos first, later on other photos became more prevalent ie.

                  http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7850407_f248.jpg

                  1. Seth Winter profile image80
                    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So instead of waiting for a current picture they posted a picture of Trayvon as a 12 year old and Zimmerman in county orange? Yeah, that sounds fair.

                    1. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Sorry are you now complaining about unfair representations after posting a picture of SOMEONE ELSE as Trayvon? tongue Because a five year old photo is way better than a photo of someone else who is 11 years older.

    3. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

      You continue to mischaracterize calling for justice (i.e., an arrest and trial) as "out to get someone."  I know it's easier to argue against an exaggeration.  I get it.

      Of course we are a nation of laws.  Do you see me on the evening news hunting down and hanging anyone?  No, all I'm doing is advocating that trained cops not be allowed to beat to death a disabled man, that some self-appointed mall cop with a gun not be allowed to follow and shoot an unarmed teenager, and that spoiled, cretin teenage boys not be allowed to rape and humiliate an unconscious teenage girl. 

      Have I posted a lie?  No, I've posted an opinion on an internet forum, an opinion that's shared by a lot of people.  Oooooh, I'm awful.

      roll

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  Just calling for "justice"?  Let's look at some of your "calls" - going back through some of your posts on this thread:

        "defending an actual vigilante who took it upon himself to follow an unarmed kid and shoot him"  Do you know what a vigilante is?

        "Zimmerman had an injury does not mean he needed to kill a teenager"  And you know there was no need to shoot how?

        "and then shooting him after instigating a struggle"  How do you know who started the physical struggle?

        Quite the calls for justice aren't they?  Can you point to even one that can be backed up as true beyond a reasonable doubt at this point?  Is even one aimed at police or the court system?

        No, they are nothing more than rabble rousing - lies to raise public opinion against Zimmerman without a single care as to innocence or guilt.  You will, of course, make your own decision as to whether or not such rabble rousing is an awful thing to do to someone.  Or to the self respect of the person making the statements.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, a vigilante is a person who takes the law into his or her own hands.  Sounds like Mr. Zimmerman, doesn't it?

          As for the rest, again, those are my opinions based upon what I've read.  I could be wrong; I could be right.  As you keep saying, it is up to the courts to decide.  However, as I keep pointing out, in particularly the cases of the murdered disabled man and the raped girl, the perpetrators would have gone on their merry way without an arrest were it not for people who had similar reactions to mine.

          I am thankful for those rabble rousers, as you call them.  Don't worry; my self-respect is doing just fine.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            vig·i·lan·te
            [vij-uh-lan-tee] Show IPA
            noun
            1.a member of a vigilance committee.
            2.any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

            1) technically describes a neighborhood watch, but neither of us is referring to that.  2) certainly does not apply; as far as we know Zimmerman did nothing wrong in speaking to Martin.  Hindsight shows it was pretty stupid, not nothing.

            If you're going to repeat unsubstantiated claims from the internet as your opinion, you might make it clear that you are merely repeating what you read on the net - that there is no proof and you have chosen the opinion you have because...well...just because.  It's good enough for teens and younger children through the country, after all, and should be good enough for everyone else, too.

            "However, as I keep pointing out, in particularly the cases of the murdered disabled man and the raped girl, the perpetrators would have gone on their merry way without an arrest were it not for people who had similar reactions to mine."

            Sorry - your claim that perpetrators would not have been arrested has no proof behind it had the public not made demands.  It is a claim, nothing more.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You're thankful for the rabble rousers, yes.  Until you are falsely accused and find yourself on the wrong end of that.  Things might just look a little different then; have a little different appearance when it becomes personal.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I will add as well that you know as well as I do that such statements, from thousands or millions of people, make an unbiased jury nearly impossible to get.  It will also, if the finding is innocent, make life very difficult for an innocent victim of public opinion.

        So - are you out to "get" him (Zimmerman)?  Knowing the results of this kind of garbage, you aren't trying to hurt him regardless of any verdict?  Nice try.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hogwash.  Are you saying no one else like you exists?  LOL

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am quite certain they exist.  From the number of trashy threads like this it seems unusual, though.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What?  Stating an opinion based on what you've read?  Imagine that!  And you stated it so emphatically:  "I am quite certain they exist."

              How do you know that is true?  Do you have any real evidence or are you just making stuff up to support your argument?  Maybe you are one of a kind.  But how could you possibly know one way or another?  How can you so emphatically state something that you have no idea is true or not?

              That "trashy" stuff works both ways, doesn't it?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                At least two do; both my son and daughter-in-law find that making false claims, including those with out basis, is unethical.  That makes at least 3, which means I'm not alone.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, so you took an informal survey of your family, hardly what I would call unimpeachable evidence. 

                  [This is exactly what you do, provide all kinds of namby-pamby qualifications for why this is "just speculation" or you "can't possible know that" or "maybe this" or whatever, ad infinitum.]

                  I just KNOW that it is not okay for six cops to beat to death an unarmed disabled man.  I just KNOW it, and pretty much everyone else does, too.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, you may call me a liar for providing that evidence; it is not a video or court recordings of trial proceedings.  I understand that.

                    Why don't you question the things about Zimmerman that you want to hear the same way?  Because you want to hear them?

                    PP, I won't argue the death of an unarmed disabled man except to note that the disabled part refers to schizophrenia; hardly the "disability" are pretending it to be.  Do try and be honest, giving full information that might be pertinent.

                    Wait.  Sorry, I forgot - honesty and full information is the last thing you'll want to provide.  It might allow a reader to better understand and that's not a good thing when one is trying to convince without evidence.

                    1. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      So beating a mentally disabled man to death en mass is better?

                    2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You misunderstand.  I am not calling you a liar.  I am also certain there are those like you out there.  I was treating your statement of such certainty the way you do others who make similar statements, to make a point.  That is all.

                      How is schizophrenia not a disability?  In fact, it was probably why he didn't respond the way the police officers expected him to.  He was undoubtedly killed because of his disability, in a sense.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          See I have agreed with a lot of what you say but I think this is an interesting point, I am unsure whether Zimmerman is guilty of any crime (the trial will decide) but does someone who stalked a kid walking home on the basis that "he looked suspicious" (which we are IMO deluding ourselves if we think was anything other than racial) and then killed him in the confrontation caused by this deserve to live a normal life even if innocent, if your prejudice causes the end of a child's life is it justice to go right back to your own, I am not advocating stringing him up but I certainly wouldn't want the guy in my neighborhood.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Recognizing that the racist aspect is your opinion, what is that opinion based on?

            So far we "know" that Zimmerman helped and coached neighborhood kids of all races, specifically including blacks.  We know he was part black.  We know that NBC doctored a tape to strongly insinuate race was a concern.  As far as I've heard, the only kid out that night was black.  Which one of these gives the impression that his actions was racially motivated?

    4. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago

      When it comes to Mister Zimmerman in this atrocity with young Trayvon Martin I say "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck "It Is a Duck." America has enough history in racism that we don't need to start from scratch. Racial injustice has permeated America from the lowest level in our society to the judicial system that we held so highly.

      Years ago if a black person had did something nonblacks felt was unlawful and you just happen to be in the area where they were looking for the perpetrator more times than not an innocent black person was lynched and usually the Law Would Do Nothing to These Perpetrators.

      1. Seth Winter profile image80
        Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While I agree racism still exists...Zimmerman doesn't strike me as the racist type.

        Did you know his wife and him took two black kids out in a "Big Brother" type program. Later the program ran out of funding but the couple continued to take the two black boys out on activities using their own money.

        And regardless of what SStar would like to believe...didn't the FBI clear Zimmerman of all racist charges?

        Your right SStar sometimes if it acts like a duck, its a duck.  And Trayvon was a 17 year old with a past history of drug dealing, petty theft (stealing womens jewelry from lockers), spraying gang symbols on school property, and assault.

        It sounds like ZImmerman put down a thug that night, not a child.

        1. SpanStar profile image61
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Seth,

          Your view of Mister Zimmerman not being a racist is in fact your view it is not my view.

          Did you know that bigots, plantation owners, slave owners hated black people with a passion but still gave black people the job of raising their children.

          Do you also know that if you suspect someone of being guilty of a crime you cannot act on your suspicions even if you see that person walking down the street minding their own business. Suspicion is not enough probable cause to intervene in someone else's life. At least from where I'm sitting the thug is the one who pursues someone for no good reason.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Seth gave some reasonable roots for his belief that Zimmerman did not act out of racism. 

            You say he did - what are the roots of your belief?

          2. Seth Winter profile image80
            Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So tell us SStar the FBI cleared him of racism...what do you know that they didn't? Perhaps you should go tell them they made a mistake. Here I'll make it easy for you.

            http://www.fbi.gov/

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am unsure about Zimmerman's guilt or otherwise, we shall see at trial, on the other hand I am absolutely sure your choice to call Trayvon a "thug" or describing it as "putting down" (as one does to an animal) is completely independent from his race ... totally...

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Josak,
            My reference was not to Trayvon it was not he pursuing but rather being pursued.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That reply was aimed at Seth not you, sorry for the confusion.

              1. Seth Winter profile image80
                Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Looking at Trayvon's past criminal history I see a guy who started graduating to more serious crimes. It was only a matter of time before Trayvon became a statistic part of the 44% of the Prison population.  He was 1 year away from being an adult.

                The way I see it, Zimmerman was attacked by an angry teenage (because we all know teenagers are so rational). Zimmerman's story adds up, but what the story you believe doesn't.

                Why call the cops on himself? Why bash his own head into the concrete? And out of all the people Zimmerman called the cops on, why did Zimmerman decide to kill this guy?

                Yeah Zimmerman put down a bad dog. Nope that's not based on race. That's based on the fact that Trayvon was getting worse, and it was only a matter of time before he landed in jail. This way he wouldn't take innocent life with him.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  OH I see because you are an expert in human development, obviously a kid who has committed some petty crimes is going to then kill people. Christ I have a junior record! I am now in my 60s I grew up black and poor! the stereotyping is incredible.

                  "Not based on race" sure, you just referred to a human being, not even an adult yet as an animal for a second time.

                  Truly sick.

                  1. Seth Winter profile image80
                    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well some people are animals. Take the recent story of the 13, and 15 year old the shot a mother (leg) and the infant in her stroller (head).  I'd say that qualifies as no longer human and deserving of a "put down." Or do you think they should be let off the hook...maybe ground them-no tv or videos game a week.

                    And where's the stereo typing? Where did I say Trayvon Martin was black therefore guilty. I said look at his past, wasn't he serving a school suspension when he was killed? Where did you think Trayvon was headed.

                    A study back in 94' revealed that 3/4 of the juveniles criminals that were a threat to the public came from broken homes. Another study showed that over half of the prison population grew up in broken home. Studies also show that lesser crimes can eventually lead to bigger ones.

                    So far Josak I've put my faith in ZImmerman's story. I've displayed the facts...you've displayed that your black and therefore the world must be racist. Give me a story about a white/brown/purple/pink kid that has a past like Trayvon and you'll hear me say that same thing, but using the race card is a pathetic argument especially when no racism is present.

                    All your posts scream racism, when no racism is present. I posted the FBI website for SStar when he started claiming ZImmerman was racist...do you also know something they don't...do you need me to post that website for you?

                    Trayvon Martin case does have alot of racism though...from the black side. Obama comment, Spike Lee...etc

                    1. SpanStar profile image61
                      SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      SETH,
                      You post the FBI website because of things that I've said well do me a favor posted several more times for me Because Whether You like It or Not People Are Entitled to Their Opinion EVEN IF THAT OPINION DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOURS!

                      The actions I've seen leading up to the death of young Trayvon indicates more to me than just someone trying to do their job. Now take that and posted on the FBI website.

                      Freedom of speech still exist in America.

                    2. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      See I am not playing a race card, that term is correctly used when a person attempts to prove or aid a point by claiming the other side is racist, as I have already said I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, for me there is insufficient evidence released, perhaps we shall see at trial. My ONLY point was not that I think Zimmerman is racist but that YOU ARE, that your comments are, that your behavior has been, not to mention disrespectful of the dead child and his family.

                      If I posted a photo that falsely showed a white alleged criminal as a snaggle toothed redneck with a shotgun and stereotyped him as violent then I would be rightly called a racist, if you get a black teen then falsely put a photo of a 28 year old rapper associated with violence it's "obviously not racist". Actually it's very racist not to mention poorly researched, it demonstrates a desire to wish to stereotype (falsely) black people as violent and potential victims as perpetrators.

                      If I call a white alleged criminal an incestuous cracker then I am quite rightly labelled a racist, if you call a black teen a thug with the racial connotations of that word then you are quite rightly labelled a racist.

                      If you call a black kid whose crimes are petty theft and "a suspension" an animal who should be put down then one has serious motive to question either your bias or your grip on reality.

                      If you suggest that because someone has petty theft convictions and is serving a suspension they are going to end up killing someone again your bias or your sanity are in question.

                      Your behavior has been disgusting, I am sure you lack the capacity to realize it or how the legacy of such discrimination harms society but I felt compelled to tell you anyway as I was too sickened to stay quiet something I have only ever done once before, I hope you can have a look at your posts think how you would feel if I suggested your child deserved to be put down because he had a pretty criminal record and admit at least to yourself the discrimination in your comments and attitudes, but I doubt you can, very few racists have ever believed they were racist.

    5. SpanStar profile image61
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago

      My reasons for not wanting this guy in my neighborhood are outlined in brackets.
      This is Zimmerman's 911 transcript

      Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
      something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
      [Even at this point Mister Zimmerman hasn't said one thing that this kid did which is against the law]

      Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
      Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
      Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does
      anything else.
      Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the
      clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the
      clubhouse.
      [Apparently Mister Zimmerman has classified Trayvon Martin as a derogatory term without having made any contact]

      Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
      Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh
      you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.
      [Still there is no allegation of wrongdoing by Trayvon Martin but now there is a need on Mister Zimmerman's part to chase]
      [a kid who has done nothing wrong.]

      Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
      Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
      Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
      Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible]
      Dispatcher: Are you following him?
      Zimmerman: Yeah
      Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
      Zimmerman: Ok
      [One would think if one is working for the law then they would respect the law however not so with Mister Zimmerman]
      [It seems apparent the line of reasoning Mister Zimmerman is following-this kid is classified in Mister Zimmerman's]
      [ mind as a assholes and so he needs to take his gun and deal with this person who still has done nothing wrong]

      Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
      Zimmerman: George…He ran.
      Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?

      1. Seth Winter profile image80
        Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to of left out the beginning...where it shows why he called the cops...let me add that...

        (http://www.examiner.com/article/george- … ranscribed)

        The 911 call was one of Zimmerman's nearly 50 calls in the past year

        Zimmerman:
        We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
        This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]

        You've also left out the end where he lost Trayvon.
        911 dispatcher:
        OK, what’s your apartment number?
        Zimmerman:
        It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
        911 dispatcher:
        OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
        Zimmerman:
        Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
        911 dispatcher:
        Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
        Zimmerman:
        Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
        911 dispatcher:
        OK, that’s no problem.

        There's a bit more but it's just giving dispatch his number and saying goodbye. Notice how Zimmerman lost Trayvon. According to Zimmerman's story he was walking back to his car when Trayvon came out of the darkness after him.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY      Zimmerman's Account.

        So SStar you don't want to live in a neighborhood where people report suspicious activity? I don't know about you but I'd rather have the cops called on me by accident then have my apartment broken into.

        1. SpanStar profile image61
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't seem to leave out the beginning of the transcript I deliberately left it out As I Have Said Time and Time Again Being Suspicious Isn't It Enough to Intervene in People's Lives.

          Mister Zimmerman made a number of accusations against this kid regarding him being suspicious, he has something in his hands But every accusation Mister Zimmerman made as far as portraying this kid as even being a party to the crime for which he says took place WERE ALL WRONG!

          You are perfectly welcome to live in any neighborhood where people Are Prejudged and Prejudge Wrongly!

          Here is a hypothetical scenario:
          let's say you and a stranger or at the airport, baggage department. Your suitcase has not shown up but the stranger next to you is holding a suitcase that looks exactly like yours-are with you within your rights to demand that suitcase?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The only reason I can think of to leave part of it out is to try and spread your own opinion (ignoring some of the facts because they don't fit your conclusion) rather than let other draw their own conclusion using ALL the facts.  Playing prosecuting attorney, in other words, rather than jury.

            To demand the suitcase?  Certainly not.  To politely ask the stranger to re-check the name tag?  Of course, and I have done so in the past.  Of course, I had to approach and speak to said stranger in order to do that - suspicious that he had the wrong bag, I "intervened" in his life.

            Ever heard of someone being stopped for weaving over the road?  Where the cop was suspicious the driver was drunk?  Or heard of a case where a cop, having stopped a car for something, detains it and calls for the drug dogs based on suspicion?  Security the world over, whether it be cops, military, store security or the secret service watch, follow, speak to and sometimes detain people they are suspicious of.  It's how crimes are prevented rather than allowing one to happen and then make an arrest.

            1. SpanStar profile image61
              SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              When it comes to the transcript Show All of It it changes nothing.

              The suspicious scenario you present most of them show probable cause. If a woman is walking down the street swinging her purse looking around where is the probable cause to intervene in her life?

              There were more definitions but I chose this one:

              Intervene:

              to interfere with force or a threat of force

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Also, those scenarios involve security personnel who are either in uniform or can present I.D.  That is a very different thing than being followed at night by a stranger for no reason.  I have been followed before, and believe me, it is scary.  As I was being followed, my mind was racing with ideas for how I would defend myself should my follower approach me.  I am skilled in martial arts so some of these ideas were pretty injurious.  If I had attempted to defend myself, and my follower shot me, would I be blamed for my own death?  I hope not.  Would the man who killed me be found within his rights to shoot me while I was defending myself from a situation he created?  I hope not.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Would the man who killed me be found within his rights to shoot me while I was defending myself from a situation he created"

                  At this point in our knowledge of the actions that night, Martin did not defend himself from a situation created by Zimmerman; he defended himself from an imagined scenario that he created himself.  He apparently had no reason to attack Zimmerman (there was no violence actually indicated) outside of his own fear.  Being approached by a stranger is not a reason to knock them down - just as you say (and I've experienced the same) the mind races with ideas of what might happen but that's no reason to attack yourself and I presume you did not do so.  Martin did.

                  We will hopefully understand eventually just why he did that, but in the meantime it seems prudent to acknowledge our ignorance and not prejudge actions by either man.  There is little doubt in my mind that the actions of Zimmerman that night were stupid in the extreme, that he should have stayed in his car or at least kept his distance, but not doing so does not make him a murderer and certainly does not make him a racist out looking for a black kid to kill.  He did, after all, have just as much right to walk the street that night as Martin did and, as his past record of calls to 911 plainly show, did so regularly in an effort to protect his neighborhood.

                  1. Soul Man Dancer profile image61
                    Soul Man Dancerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What? He imagined that some freaked out nutcase was following him with bad intentions?

                    1. Seth Winter profile image80
                      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      We do know that according to the dispatch transcript that Zimmerman supposedly lost Trayvon Martin....why didn't Trayvon call the cops? We also know that Trayvon had MMA experience but honestly as Soul Man Dancer pointed out...if he imagined "some freaked out nutcase" was following him why take the chance? He escaped. Call the cops.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I understand that reading all the transcript changes nothing for you.  That doesn't mean, however, that others would not find that section describing reasons for following to be irrelevant; they might feel it is an important part of the activity that happened that night.  By "forgetting" to include it, then, you are encouraging them to draw conclusions without having full knowledge - or is that the desired result of your post?

                Your concept of probable cause will be different than mine, different than Zimmerman's and likely different than any one else for that matter.  You don't have the knowledge or prior experience in the neighborhood, for instance, and that will absolutely make a difference in what is considered probably cause.  That you find no "probably cause" for Zimmerman to follow Martin is irrelevant; Zimmerman obviously thought he had it.

                Your scenario: if you are on a dark street, in the rain, and someone approaches you, would you find more danger in a male teen, holding an unknown object while peering around him, or the woman cheerfully swinging her purse?  I know which one would bother me more to have approach me, and I know which one I would more suspect of looking for something to steal...

                Intervene means use of force.  By your definition, then, Zimmerman did not "intervene" in Martins life until Martin attacked him.  You might want to reconsider your thinking here...

                1. Seth Winter profile image80
                  Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Good post Wilderness.

                  I'd like to add. Even in your version SStar the suspect was wearing a hoodie, hence the Million Hoodie March) But wearing a hoodie can get you shot in certain areas of the US and I bet if you were to jump on youtube. Search for  "7 eleven robberies"
                  You'd find that the majority of the robbers wore hoodies.

                  While wearing a hoodie at isn't a crime (currently wearing a hoodie-it's cold in Cali) having the hood-up is suspicious. It helps hide your identity. I've worked Security before, you watch people hoodies.

              3. Seth Winter profile image80
                Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And again SStar either decided to leave something out (the rest of the definitions-typically the higher the number the less that meaning is used for the word)

                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intervene?s=t

                in·ter·vene  [in-ter-veen]  Show IPA
                verb (used without object), in·ter·vened, in·ter·ven·ing.
                1.to come between disputing people, groups, etc.; intercede; mediate.
                2.to occur or be between two things.
                3.to occur or happen between other events or periods: Nothing important intervened between the meetings.
                4.(of things) to occur incidentally so as to modify or hinder: We enjoyed the picnic until a thunderstorm intervened.
                5.to interfere with force or a threat of force: to intervene in the affairs of another country.

                Question SStar since intervene means with force or threat of force does that mean....
                http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl … s/1997421/

                The pope was asked to beatup both Britain and Argentina? To use force?


                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7852452_f248.jpg


                (Personal note: No offense is meant to anyone of Catholic Faith. For this picture I simply thought of the most peaceful man I could think of to use in my argument that had a story about intervene. Obviously, to intervene usually means to mediate)

                1. SpanStar profile image61
                  SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Seth,

                  The definitions I choose to use is of my choosing stop expecting me to think and act like you. Perhaps that is one of the initial issues with this Zimmerman case is the idea of prejudging people because of some distorted idea that this is how a person is supposed to behave. If a person decides to skip down the street rather than walk down the street that does not deem them evil or suspicious only in the mind of some observers.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Excellent point.  I might add that if a person decides to patrol their neighborhood and report or speak to suspicious looking characters it makes them racists or murders only in the minds of some observers that are eager to prejudge.

      2. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago

        (Sorry, off topic real quick)
        Y'all have to go read Seth's article about an underwater sculptor... it's at the bottom of his list of hubs. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

       
      working