Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:09 am wrote:American Dream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:58 am wrote:Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:36 am wrote:Good questions 8bit and we dont have the answer for them, hence my continued reminder that there was simply not any evidence to support the charge, this does not mean he didnt do it, this do not mean I support the murder and GZ's actions, this does not mean any fucking thing other than the standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt could not possibly be met with the the small amount of evidence that state had. I think there are people out, actual legal experts who believe the state even threw the care, just went through the motions of a trial because they knew from day one there was not enough evidence to convict GZ and again THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM ENDORSING WHAT HE DID or saying he didnt do what we all know he did, I am simply saying the evidence is not there and you just cant put people in prison, no matter how much you hate them or how guilty you know they are, unless there is enough evidence for a jurt to legally convict them, and in this case, sadly there was not.
Sometime- and granted now is probably not the right moment- it might be good to unpack some more what that verdict does actually mean in the big picture, beyond the narrow logic of whether the jurors as individuals made the correct choice, given the marching orders the court presented them with, the evidence proffered etc.
Because, while the individual jurors undoubtedly did have biases, this goes so far beyond the personal that the personal- as well as the narrow legal- just basically serves to obscure the bigger points.
People are marching in the streets because of their complaints about injustice- systematic, pervasive and longstanding injustice.
Are their concerns valid?
It is my contention that there is a huge amount of validity to their concerns. This is the most important point- and it should not be obscured.
.
Are you suggesting that the state is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep GZ from being convicted and worked in concert with everyone else involved to make sure that there was not enough evidence presented to get a guilty verdict?
I am asking sincerely, I mean I absolutely open to that point. Just come out and say what you think happened here and I will be glad to discuss it but I dont want to dance around the issue, if you think there is some institutional conspiracy involved lay out your argument and lets see if it adds up, you wont hear me making a stink about any of it, I am open to just about anything at this point because from what is saw the state eitehr threw this case and was just going through the motions or they are some of the most incompetent prosecutors I have ever seen because they lost this case from the word go, the case was lost during their opening statements IMO. Why that is I dont know but they never presented anything even remotely close to a case that any jury could have voted for a 2nd degree murder verdict with a straight face. Evidence just wasnt there, why that is I dont know but I sense you have some ideas about that and I would love to hear them.
Otherwise I am not sure I really want to be here much longer, I just dont get a good vibe from this forum much anymore but id love to have a good discussion about why this case turned out the way it did and hear others opinions on that fi w can get past the name calling and personal attacks and just let people express themselves freely and openly without any gate keeping going on.
Nordic » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:17 pm wrote:HE DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS, as least that the evidence shows, there is no evidence that he broke a law and that is what is needed, evidence.
What the fuck is wrong with you? He shot and killed somebody. There was a goddamn dead body there, that's your fucking evidence, you fucking racist.
Trayvon Martin and Embedded Racism
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Did the ghosts of our slave-holding and Jim Crow past high-five each other in the Florida courtroom on Saturday? George Zimmerman was acquitted, but does that mean that American history was, too?
The experts who weighed in on the legal battle essentially noted that, in the absence of any witnesses other than Zimmerman, the prosecution couldn't prove what had happened, or more to the point, couldn't convincingly counter-argue his version of events – that he was returning to his car when Trayvon Martin assaulted him and threw him to the ground, forcing him to kill the boy in self-defense. Trayvon was dead; that left him, legally, voiceless and out of luck.
Hmm . . . wasn't that the case anyway?
The incident blew into a national outrage because, initially, the boy's killing was nothing at all in the eyes of the law. He was walking through a white, gated community, wearing a hoodie. Stand your ground! The police held the killer for a few hours, then let him go without charges.
"The police initially did not have evidence to disprove Zimmerman's self-defense claim," USA Today reported, quoting former Sanford, Fla. police chief Bill Lee, Jr. It hardly mattered that the victim was unarmed. Right from the start, it was obvious the state had no interest in actual justice from Trayvon Martin's point of view – any more than the state has ever evinced interest in justice or, good Lord, healing in relation to its own past.
Our present legal system has evolved from legal and social structures that regarded certain categories of human beings as chattel. That immorality has never been officially disowned. It has never been fully and courageously addressed with any depth of remorse, either socially or legally. We've never had our moment of national atonement for slavery. We've never started over.
"Trayvon Martin's death is an American tragedy, but it will mainly be understood as an African-American one," Jelani Cobb wrote for the New Yorker.
Where is the court of justice big enough to try this case as the American tragedy that it is, and to put the whole context of Trayvon's killing on the stand? The glaring prejudices built into our legal system, even if they've been erased from the letter of the law, permeate its collective will and heart. Slavery is eradicated, but racism regroups. How in God's name do we stop this once and for all?
It's no secret that the police in most American communities focus on young black males, going out of their way to harass and intimidate them, for the ultimate purpose of corralling them into the prison system and permanent second-class citizenship. The rest of the legal system, berobed and tradition-bound, pushes that process along in a pretense of impartiality that is seldom questioned or challenged. Why is our prison population so disproportionately black and brown? The experts shrug.
Trayvon was shot and killed because he was a black person out of place, walking through a white neighborhood. In this case, the "cop" was only a neighborhood-watch guy and cop wannabe, but that didn't particularly matter. Afterward Zimmerman was treated like a cop – debriefed and allowed to walk, no harm done.
This changed only because Trayvon's parents, in their grief and outrage, petitioned for Zimmerman's arrest and filed suit to get the public records of the case. The incident began getting media attention and, three weeks after it occurred, went national. Ka-wham! Suddenly the system was outflanked by public outrage and had no choice but to reverse itself, arrest Zimmerman and charge him with second-degree murder.
That's a victory of sorts for human decency and the latter-day civil rights movement, but not enough of one. The fact that Zimmerman was acquitted may well have an upside, in that it guarantees that public outrage over this iconic injustice will not end. The push to put American history and its legal system on trial will and must continue, in Trayvon's name and Emmett Till's name and for the nameless millions who have suffered and continue to suffer because of it. The time has come – I hope – to challenge our legal system all the way to its racist roots, and to demand that the state find an interest in healing the harm it has caused.
Talking about Zimmerman's search for anyone who didn't belong in his whitish 'hood, Thom Hartmann noted on The Daily Take that, "The South has a long history of this sort of thing. Today they're called Neighborhood Watches. They used to be called Slave Patrols."
Hartmann quotes the Slave Patrol Regulations from Rowan County, N.C., circa 1825. Here's regulation no. 4: "One patroller shall have power to seize any negro slave who behaves insolently to a patroller, or otherwise unlawfully or suspiciously; and hold such slave in custody until he can bring together a requisite number of Patrollers to act in the business."
Yeah, we've buried this history. The time has come to exhume it. Racism is alive and well and embedded in our legal system. It's the soul of retributive justice, which has an interest in punishment and the culling out of human chaff. Let's find the courage to build a new system based on healing and inclusion – and justice for the ones we've always excluded from it.
American Dream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:28 am wrote:Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:09 am wrote:American Dream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:58 am wrote:Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:36 am wrote:Good questions 8bit and we dont have the answer for them, hence my continued reminder that there was simply not any evidence to support the charge, this does not mean he didnt do it, this do not mean I support the murder and GZ's actions, this does not mean any fucking thing other than the standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt could not possibly be met with the the small amount of evidence that state had. I think there are people out, actual legal experts who believe the state even threw the care, just went through the motions of a trial because they knew from day one there was not enough evidence to convict GZ and again THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM ENDORSING WHAT HE DID or saying he didnt do what we all know he did, I am simply saying the evidence is not there and you just cant put people in prison, no matter how much you hate them or how guilty you know they are, unless there is enough evidence for a jurt to legally convict them, and in this case, sadly there was not.
Sometime- and granted now is probably not the right moment- it might be good to unpack some more what that verdict does actually mean in the big picture, beyond the narrow logic of whether the jurors as individuals made the correct choice, given the marching orders the court presented them with, the evidence proffered etc.
Because, while the individual jurors undoubtedly did have biases, this goes so far beyond the personal that the personal- as well as the narrow legal- just basically serves to obscure the bigger points.
People are marching in the streets because of their complaints about injustice- systematic, pervasive and longstanding injustice.
Are their concerns valid?
It is my contention that there is a huge amount of validity to their concerns. This is the most important point- and it should not be obscured.
.
Are you suggesting that the state is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep GZ from being convicted and worked in concert with everyone else involved to make sure that there was not enough evidence presented to get a guilty verdict?
I am asking sincerely, I mean I absolutely open to that point. Just come out and say what you think happened here and I will be glad to discuss it but I dont want to dance around the issue, if you think there is some institutional conspiracy involved lay out your argument and lets see if it adds up, you wont hear me making a stink about any of it, I am open to just about anything at this point because from what is saw the state eitehr threw this case and was just going through the motions or they are some of the most incompetent prosecutors I have ever seen because they lost this case from the word go, the case was lost during their opening statements IMO. Why that is I dont know but they never presented anything even remotely close to a case that any jury could have voted for a 2nd degree murder verdict with a straight face. Evidence just wasnt there, why that is I dont know but I sense you have some ideas about that and I would love to hear them.
Otherwise I am not sure I really want to be here much longer, I just dont get a good vibe from this forum much anymore but id love to have a good discussion about why this case turned out the way it did and hear others opinions on that fi w can get past the name calling and personal attacks and just let people express themselves freely and openly without any gate keeping going on.
No- I was not suggesting that "the state is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep GZ from being convicted and worked in concert with everyone else involved to make sure that there was not enough evidence presented to get a guilty verdict".
I was referring instead to the institutional racism, structural inequality, settler colonialism, white supremacy, that sort of thing.
Don't you see the connection?
Hunter » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:40 pm wrote:Jerky » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:24 pm wrote:Link please for this last story.
Based on his recorded comments alone, we would have good enough evidence to assume GZ was racist. Reading a summary of his father's disgraceful book pretty much seals the deal.
YOPJ
If you are referring to the story 8bit posted about the kid killed, he was the son of of suspected terrorist he was in the car with his father on vacation and Obama ordered a drone strike to kill the father and the son was in the car with him, I am ashamed to admit I cant remember the name now, was it Alwaki or something. Horrible, horrible situation.
8bit can fill us in, I cant remember those arabs names well I am sad to admit, there are so many of them we have villified I cant keep up anymore but this particular story that 8bit referenced was just about as horrible as it gets when speaking of war crimes.
…along with the repeated assertion throughout the thread that the jury made the right decision, makes me feel uneasy.
Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:49 am wrote:American Dream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:28 am wrote:Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:09 am wrote:American Dream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:58 am wrote:Hunter » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:36 am wrote:Good questions 8bit and we dont have the answer for them, hence my continued reminder that there was simply not any evidence to support the charge, this does not mean he didnt do it, this do not mean I support the murder and GZ's actions, this does not mean any fucking thing other than the standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt could not possibly be met with the the small amount of evidence that state had. I think there are people out, actual legal experts who believe the state even threw the care, just went through the motions of a trial because they knew from day one there was not enough evidence to convict GZ and again THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM ENDORSING WHAT HE DID or saying he didnt do what we all know he did, I am simply saying the evidence is not there and you just cant put people in prison, no matter how much you hate them or how guilty you know they are, unless there is enough evidence for a jurt to legally convict them, and in this case, sadly there was not.
Sometime- and granted now is probably not the right moment- it might be good to unpack some more what that verdict does actually mean in the big picture, beyond the narrow logic of whether the jurors as individuals made the correct choice, given the marching orders the court presented them with, the evidence proffered etc.
Because, while the individual jurors undoubtedly did have biases, this goes so far beyond the personal that the personal- as well as the narrow legal- just basically serves to obscure the bigger points.
People are marching in the streets because of their complaints about injustice- systematic, pervasive and longstanding injustice.
Are their concerns valid?
It is my contention that there is a huge amount of validity to their concerns. This is the most important point- and it should not be obscured.
.
Are you suggesting that the state is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep GZ from being convicted and worked in concert with everyone else involved to make sure that there was not enough evidence presented to get a guilty verdict?
I am asking sincerely, I mean I absolutely open to that point. Just come out and say what you think happened here and I will be glad to discuss it but I dont want to dance around the issue, if you think there is some institutional conspiracy involved lay out your argument and lets see if it adds up, you wont hear me making a stink about any of it, I am open to just about anything at this point because from what is saw the state eitehr threw this case and was just going through the motions or they are some of the most incompetent prosecutors I have ever seen because they lost this case from the word go, the case was lost during their opening statements IMO. Why that is I dont know but they never presented anything even remotely close to a case that any jury could have voted for a 2nd degree murder verdict with a straight face. Evidence just wasnt there, why that is I dont know but I sense you have some ideas about that and I would love to hear them.
Otherwise I am not sure I really want to be here much longer, I just dont get a good vibe from this forum much anymore but id love to have a good discussion about why this case turned out the way it did and hear others opinions on that fi w can get past the name calling and personal attacks and just let people express themselves freely and openly without any gate keeping going on.
No- I was not suggesting that "the state is involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep GZ from being convicted and worked in concert with everyone else involved to make sure that there was not enough evidence presented to get a guilty verdict".
I was referring instead to the institutional racism, structural inequality, settler colonialism, white supremacy, that sort of thing.
Don't you see the connection?
Ok thank you for clarifying that, I sincerely was not trying to put any words in your mouth and I honestly just misunderstood you.I see what you are getting at now and I am honestly not prepared at this time to answer your question but I will give this some thought and do some reading and see if I can see what you are suggesting here.
The only connection I can make is that I am quite certain if GZ were black and Trayvon were white GZ would not only be in prison but he would have been in the jail the entire time awaiting his trial, denied bail and certainly would not have enjoyed being at home like he was.
So is that closer to what you are getting at here?
I am at work with about ten things going on here but I am sincerely interested in what you have to say about this but I may need you to spell it out a little more for me, how exactly does white supremacy, for example, fit in to the case in particular?
seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:22 pm wrote:…along with the repeated assertion throughout the thread that the jury made the right decision, makes me feel uneasy.
that's the problem....one does not need to repeat over and over the same assertion...that's why people are getting irritated .... loosing patience...and resulting to name calling.......or just ignoring
if one does that it appears one is looking for a fight
so one should not be surprised... angry....or pissed if that is the result
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests