Trayvon Martin

[Hunter]

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?

Let's put the connection to black and brown bodies gunned down in the street, lots of them and the killers most always exculpated, or disproportionately treated. Let's put the connection to a War on Drugs/War on Crime that mostly locks up the black and brown, creating untold dimensions of human suffering inside the walls and without, breeding generations of future problems.

As schools are defunded and shut down, new prisons are built- and some will profit, some will pay. Realtors are "just doing their job" as new ghettos are created and old neighborhoods are cleared out for those who will profit from gentrification. Who put the crack in the ghetto? We are all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others...

Let's put the connection to 500 years of colonial rule, where black and brown bodies are to be policed at the barrel of a gun- if not exterminated- by the more privileged caste of "white", who will gain benefits for their service to Empire, although they are mostly exploited too.

Let's put the connection to the racism which pervades the Society so completely that for many it is like water- just invisible. Do you think the cops are caught up in that?

Let's put the connection to American Justice- and the "Just Us" principle which protects and privileges some, as many, many die horrible deaths in wars of domination and occupation, be they at home or abroad, while those lucky enough to have a somewhat higher status ignore it, or at best assure themselves that they kinda had it coming...

Let's put the connection to a vast conspiracy that puts a priority on profit and power for a few, while most of us have no real say, no real voice, within their system.

Let's put the connection to the brainwashing deep inside us, conditioning us to accept, to minimize, or ignore the horrors of everyday life, to not understand how it is for the "other".

So hip, hip hooray for America- best nation on Earth- I think it needs to change deeply. I think we need to take power for ourselves. I don't believe the corporate media, I don't believe in the courts, the cops, the politicians. Each one is playing their part in something that's way bigger than any one of us. Get rid of one and a new one will take their place.

It is the System that we must challenge, that we must change, from the grassroots up. I question the System which framed and defined the killing of Trayvon Martin- and the ritual exculpation of the perpetrator. This is the place to begin from- and from there begins a whole world of struggle, a lifetime of resistance and of change...

I agree with everything you say there, AD, and I really cant even add to it and there is nothing further to say, you have pretty much covered it all but I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, I have never once said that America is the greatest nation on Earth, in fact in this time in our history we are far from that, very very far indeed. What I DID say is that our concept of due process, trial by jury IN THEORY is the best that I have ever seen and I know of no other system of jurisprudence anywhere in the world where the accused get the kind of rights that they get here in our system I personally feel it is very important that we always afford the accused those rights, no matter how much we hate and loath them because we cant be selective about such matters, we have to give a GZ the same sort of rights as an accused person that WE OURSELVES WOULD WANT IF WE WERE THE ACCUSED and if it just so happened that we were WRONGLY ACCUSED (unlike GZ of course). So yes, in fact I dont know of a better system of jurisprudence, anywhere in the world that is better than ours IN THEORY but I will be the first to admit that IN PRACTICE we often fail and usually an in epic manner and it is usually for the same reasons we fail at everything else that once made us a great nation, MONEY AND GREED. So yes we need to make the system better IN PRACTICE but in theory our due process of law and our protection of the accused and our right to not self incriminate and right not to be tried TWICE for the same crime if we dont like the result of the first time around ( no do overs for the state, double jeopardy etc) and our laws against cruel and unusual punishment and on and on and on, these are wonderful ideals and they often work and work well but again, because of greed, money, corruption and abuse of power, our ideals that are so wonderful in theory often do sometimes fail in practice and of course I am no happier about that than you are, what are we to do about it? I go to work everyday and try and change it and make it better, I am doing the best I can, I am one person but if I can keep one innocent person from being put in prison during my entire career I will consider that career to be a success because that is what I strive for every day, its the entire point of my existence professionally and the reason I get up and go to work everyday.

[Hunter]

you are called a bad name once ....try 5 years of it by 3 or 4 people ...just let it go...it's one person one time ...just let it go...if it happens repeatedly over years then I will go to bat for you too

It was let go two posts ago and yes, I understand what you have been through here, I read here at RI for some time long before I decided to join. You have fought the good fight most of the time and that is why I took issue with was said in the JC thread, it was unfair, unkind and completely uncalled for.

Anyway...

[American Dream]

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?

Let's put the connection to black and brown bodies gunned down in the street, lots of them and the killers most always exculpated, or disproportionately treated. Let's put the connection to a War on Drugs/War on Crime that mostly locks up the black and brown, creating untold dimensions of human suffering inside the walls and without, breeding generations of future problems.

As schools are defunded and shut down, new prisons are built- and some will profit, some will pay. Realtors are "just doing their job" as new ghettos are created and old neighborhoods are cleared out for those who will profit from gentrification. Who put the crack in the ghetto? We are all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others...

Let's put the connection to 500 years of colonial rule, where black and brown bodies are to be policed at the barrel of a gun- if not exterminated- by the more privileged caste of "white", who will gain benefits for their service to Empire, although they are mostly exploited too.

Let's put the connection to the racism which pervades the Society so completely that for many it is like water- just invisible. Do you think the cops are caught up in that?

Let's put the connection to American Justice- and the "Just Us" principle which protects and privileges some, as many, many die horrible deaths in wars of domination and occupation, be they at home or abroad, while those lucky enough to have a somewhat higher status ignore it, or at best assure themselves that they kinda had it coming...

Let's put the connection to a vast conspiracy that puts a priority on profit and power for a few, while most of us have no real say, no real voice, within their system.

Let's put the connection to the brainwashing deep inside us, conditioning us to accept, to minimize, or ignore the horrors of everyday life, to not understand how it is for the "other".

So hip, hip hooray for America- best nation on Earth- I think it needs to change deeply. I think we need to take power for ourselves. I don't believe the corporate media, I don't believe in the courts, the cops, the politicians. Each one is playing their part in something that's way bigger than any one of us. Get rid of one and a new one will take their place.

It is the System that we must challenge, that we must change, from the grassroots up. I question the System which framed and defined the killing of Trayvon Martin- and the ritual exculpation of the perpetrator. This is the place to begin from- and from there begins a whole world of struggle, a lifetime of resistance and of change...

I agree with everything you say there, AD, and I really cant even add to it and there is nothing further to say, you have pretty much covered it all but I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, I have never once said that America is the greatest nation on Earth, in fact in this time in our history we are far from that, very very far indeed. What I DID say is that our concept of due process, trial by jury IN THEORY is the best that I have ever seen and I know of no other system of jurisprudence anywhere in the world where the accused get the kind of rights that they get here in our system I personally feel it is very important that we always afford the accused those rights, no matter how much we hate and loath them because we cant be selective about such matters, we have to give a GZ the same sort of rights as an accused person that WE OURSELVES WOULD WANT IF WE WERE THE ACCUSED and if it just so happened that we were WRONGLY ACCUSED (unlike GZ of course). So yes, in fact I dont know of a better system of jurisprudence, anywhere in the world that is better than ours IN THEORY but I will be the first to admit that IN PRACTICE we often fail and usually an in epic manner and it is usually for the same reasons we fail at everything else that once made us a great nation, MONEY AND GREED. So yes we need to make the system better IN PRACTICE but in theory our due process of law and our protection of the accused and our right to not self incriminate and right not to be tried TWICE for the same crime if we dont like the result of the first time around ( no do overs for the state, double jeopardy etc) and our laws against cruel and unusual punishment and on and on and on, these are wonderful ideals and they often work and work well but again, because of greed, money, corruption and abuse of power, our ideals that are so wonderful in theory often do sometimes fail in practice and of course I am no happier about that than you are, what are we to do about it? I go to work everyday and try and change it and make it better, I am doing the best I can, I am one person but if I can keep one innocent person from being put in prison during my entire career I will consider that career to be a success because that is what I strive for every day, its the entire point of my existence professionally and the reason I get up and go to work everyday.

I do think that a community judging the accused by a jury of their peers is way better than some sort of unaccountable, authoritarian state bureaucracy doing the same, but the needed changes in our society are way, way beyond anything like that. I think you missed my point way back when about Adolph Eichmann.

Don't you think a discussion of Nazism that hinged on an apology based on the idea that Eichmann and so many others were merely trying to do their jobs well within a system they did not ultimately direct, would be kind of missing some important points?

I think you would agree there was much, much more wrong with the fascist regime in Germany. And much more beyond a question of Eichmanns fulfilling their role.

[Searcher08]

I think race is extremely difficult to talk about.

My limited personal experiences... was that when I dated a very attractive black (African) woman in London, it was like unexpectedly crashing into a different world, full of hostility from both whites and blacks, some covert, some not. For me, it was instantaneous - literally just walking arm in arm down the street, it started immediately - like a switch.

Except it wasnt similar for her, it was life as usual. She experienced what she described as a huge amount of misogyny (sometimes violently so) from every black man she had dated. So she gave up.

I also had the experience of being jumped and robbed by a knifewielding gang of black teens, which was traumatising, not to mention hospitalising.

I think there is a huge amount of hate between people of different races all over the planet. Persians hate Turkics hate Chinese hate Central Africans hate East Africans hate West Africans hate Toureg hate Arabs hate Berbers hate Spaniards hate Mexicans.

Fuck racism.

[seemslikeadream]

JULY 17, 2013 4:00 AM
Angela Corey’s Checkered Past
Her peers describe an M.O. of retaliation and overcharging.
By Ian Tuttle

Angela Corey, by all accounts, is no Atticus Finch. She is “one hell of a trial lawyer,” says a Florida defense attorney who has known her for three decades — but the woman who has risen to national prominence as the “tough as nails” state attorney who prosecuted George Zimmerman is known for scorching the earth. And some of her prosecutorial conduct has been, well, troubling at best.

Corey, a Jacksonville native, took a degree in marketing from Florida State University before pursuing her J.D. at the University of Florida. She became a Florida prosecutor in 1981 and tried everything from homicides to juvenile cases in the ensuing 26 years. In 2008, Corey was elected state attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, taking over from Harry Shorstein — the five-term state attorney who had fired her from his office a year earlier, citing “long-term issues” regarding her supervisory performance.

When Corey came in, she cleaned house. Corey fired half of the office’s investigators, two-fifths of its victim advocates, a quarter of its 35 paralegals, and 48 other support staff — more than one-fifth of the office. Then she sent a letter to Florida’s senators demanding that they oppose Shorstein’s pending nomination as a U.S. attorney. “I told them he should not hold a position of authority in his community again, because of his penchant for using the grand jury for personal vendettas,” she wrote.

Corey knows about personal vendettas. They seem to be her specialty. When Ron Littlepage, a journalist for the Florida Times-Union, wrote a column criticizing her handling of the Christian Fernandez case — in which Corey chose to prosecute a twelve-year-old boy for first-degree murder, who wound up locked in solitary confinement in an adult jail prior to his court date — she “fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state-attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.”

And that was moderate. When Corey was appointed to handle the Zimmerman case, Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, a former president of both the American Bar Association and Florida State University, criticized the decision: “I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.” Corey responded by making a public-records request of the university for all e-mails, text messages, and phone messages in which D’Alemberte had mentioned Fernandez. Like Littlepage, D’Alemberte had earlier criticized Corey’s handling of the Fernandez case.
Not many people are willing to cross Corey. A Florida attorney I spoke with declined to go on record because of “concerns about retaliation” — that attorney has pending cases that will require Corey’s cooperation. The attorney mentioned colleagues who have refused to speak to the media for the same reason. And to think: D’Alemberte crossed Corey twice. He should get a medal.

But what these instances point to is something much more alarming than Corey’s less-than-warm relations with her peers.

In June 2012, Alan Dershowitz, a well-known defense attorney who has been a professor at Harvard Law School for nearly half a century, criticized Corey for her affidavit in the Zimmerman case. Making use of a quirk of Florida law that gives prosecutors, for any case except first-degree murder, the option of filing an affidavit with the judge instead of going to a grand jury, Corey filed an affidavit that, according to Dershowitz, “willfully and deliberately omitted” crucial exculpatory evidence: namely, that Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman bloody at the time of the fatal gunshot. So Corey avoided a grand jury, where her case likely would not have held water, and then withheld evidence in her affidavit to the judge. “It was a perjurious affidavit,” Dershowitz tells me, and that comes with serious consequences: “Submitting a false affidavit is grounds for disbarment.”

Shortly after Dershowitz’s criticisms, Harvard Law School’s dean’s office received a phone call. When the dean refused to pick up, Angela Corey spent a half hour demanding of an office-of-communications employee that Dershowitz be fired. According to Dershowitz, Corey threatened to sue Harvard, to try to get him disbarred, and also to sue him for slander and libel. Corey also told the communications employee that she had assigned a state investigator — an employee of the State of Florida, that is — to investigate Dershowitz. “That’s an abuse of office right there,” Dershowitz says.

Advertisement

What happened in the weeks and months that followed was instructive. Dershowitz says that he was flooded with correspondence from people telling him that this is Corey’s well-known M.O. He says numerous sources — lawyers who had sparred with Corey in the courtroom, lawyers who had worked with and for her, and even multiple judges — informed him that Corey has a history of vigorously attacking any and all who criticize her. But it’s worse than that: Correspondents told him that Corey has a history of overcharging and withholding evidence.
The Zimmerman trial is a clear case of the former and a probable case of the latter. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, also known as “depraved mind” murder. The case law for that charge, an attorney who has worked in criminal prosecution outside Florida tells me, is near-unanimous: It almost never applies to one-on-one encounters. Second-degree murder is the madman who fires indiscriminately into a crowd or unlocks the lions’ cage at the zoo. “Nothing in the facts of this case approaches that.” Which Angela Corey, a veteran prosecutor, should have known, and a grand jury would have told her. In fact, both the initial police investigation and the original state attorney in charge of the case had determined exactly that: There was no evidence of any crime, much less second-degree murder

But that did not stop Corey from zealously overcharging and — the facts suggest — withholding evidence to ensure that that charge stuck.

Still, by the end of the case it was clear that the jury was unlikely to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder; hence the prosecution’s addition of a manslaughter charge — as well as its attempt to add a charge for third-degree murder by way of child abuse — after the trial had closed. “In 50 years of practice I’ve never seen anything like it,” says Dershowitz. It’s a permissible maneuver, but as a matter of professional ethics it’s a low blow.

Corey’s post-trial performance has been less than admirable as well. Asked in a prime-time interview with HLN how she would describe George Zimmerman, Corey responded, “Murderer.” Attorneys who spoke with me called her refusal to acknowledge the validity of the jury’s verdict everything from “disgusting” to “disgraceful.”

But will Corey ever be disciplined for prosecutorial abuses? It’s unlikely. State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney. The governor can remove her from office, but otherwise her position — and her license — are safe.

Meanwhile, those who speak out against her continue to be mistreated. Ben Kruidbos (pronounced CRIED-boss), the IT director at Corey’s state-attorney office, was fired last week — one month after testifying during the Zimmerman trial that Corey had withheld from defense attorneys evidence obtained from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. Corey’s office contends that Kruidbos was fired for poor job performance and for leaking personnel records. The termination notice delivered to Kruidbos last Friday read: “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” Less than two months before this letter, Kruidbos had received a raise for “meritorious performance.”

The records in question — Kruidbos maintains he had nothing to do with leaking them — revealed that Corey used $235,000 in taxpayer money to upgrade her pension and that of her co-prosecutor in the Zimmerman case, Bernie de la Rionda. The upgrade was legal, but Harry Shorstein, Corey’s predecessor, had said previously that using taxpayer funds to upgrade pensions was not “proper.”

Meanwhile, while Kruidbos has been forced out of the state attorney’s office, the managing director who wrote his termination letter — one Cheryl Peek — remains. In 1990 Peek was fired from the same state attorney’s office by Harry Shorstein’s predecessor, Ed Austin, for jury manipulation. Now, as managing director for that office, she trains lawyers in professional ethics.

Since her election, Corey seems to be determinedly purging from the ranks any who cross her and surrounding herself with inferiors whose ethical scruples appear to mirror her own. Meanwhile, those she chooses to victimize — most recently, George Zimmerman — far too often have little recourse.

“Make crime pay,” Will Rogers once quipped: “Become a lawyer.” Angela Corey seems to be less interested in making crime pay than in making her critics pay.

[Hunter]

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?

Let's put the connection to black and brown bodies gunned down in the street, lots of them and the killers most always exculpated, or disproportionately treated. Let's put the connection to a War on Drugs/War on Crime that mostly locks up the black and brown, creating untold dimensions of human suffering inside the walls and without, breeding generations of future problems.

As schools are defunded and shut down, new prisons are built- and some will profit, some will pay. Realtors are "just doing their job" as new ghettos are created and old neighborhoods are cleared out for those who will profit from gentrification. Who put the crack in the ghetto? We are all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others...

Let's put the connection to 500 years of colonial rule, where black and brown bodies are to be policed at the barrel of a gun- if not exterminated- by the more privileged caste of "white", who will gain benefits for their service to Empire, although they are mostly exploited too.

Let's put the connection to the racism which pervades the Society so completely that for many it is like water- just invisible. Do you think the cops are caught up in that?

Let's put the connection to American Justice- and the "Just Us" principle which protects and privileges some, as many, many die horrible deaths in wars of domination and occupation, be they at home or abroad, while those lucky enough to have a somewhat higher status ignore it, or at best assure themselves that they kinda had it coming...

Let's put the connection to a vast conspiracy that puts a priority on profit and power for a few, while most of us have no real say, no real voice, within their system.

Let's put the connection to the brainwashing deep inside us, conditioning us to accept, to minimize, or ignore the horrors of everyday life, to not understand how it is for the "other".

So hip, hip hooray for America- best nation on Earth- I think it needs to change deeply. I think we need to take power for ourselves. I don't believe the corporate media, I don't believe in the courts, the cops, the politicians. Each one is playing their part in something that's way bigger than any one of us. Get rid of one and a new one will take their place.

It is the System that we must challenge, that we must change, from the grassroots up. I question the System which framed and defined the killing of Trayvon Martin- and the ritual exculpation of the perpetrator. This is the place to begin from- and from there begins a whole world of struggle, a lifetime of resistance and of change...

I agree with everything you say there, AD, and I really cant even add to it and there is nothing further to say, you have pretty much covered it all but I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, I have never once said that America is the greatest nation on Earth, in fact in this time in our history we are far from that, very very far indeed. What I DID say is that our concept of due process, trial by jury IN THEORY is the best that I have ever seen and I know of no other system of jurisprudence anywhere in the world where the accused get the kind of rights that they get here in our system I personally feel it is very important that we always afford the accused those rights, no matter how much we hate and loath them because we cant be selective about such matters, we have to give a GZ the same sort of rights as an accused person that WE OURSELVES WOULD WANT IF WE WERE THE ACCUSED and if it just so happened that we were WRONGLY ACCUSED (unlike GZ of course). So yes, in fact I dont know of a better system of jurisprudence, anywhere in the world that is better than ours IN THEORY but I will be the first to admit that IN PRACTICE we often fail and usually an in epic manner and it is usually for the same reasons we fail at everything else that once made us a great nation, MONEY AND GREED. So yes we need to make the system better IN PRACTICE but in theory our due process of law and our protection of the accused and our right to not self incriminate and right not to be tried TWICE for the same crime if we dont like the result of the first time around ( no do overs for the state, double jeopardy etc) and our laws against cruel and unusual punishment and on and on and on, these are wonderful ideals and they often work and work well but again, because of greed, money, corruption and abuse of power, our ideals that are so wonderful in theory often do sometimes fail in practice and of course I am no happier about that than you are, what are we to do about it? I go to work everyday and try and change it and make it better, I am doing the best I can, I am one person but if I can keep one innocent person from being put in prison during my entire career I will consider that career to be a success because that is what I strive for every day, its the entire point of my existence professionally and the reason I get up and go to work everyday.

I do think that a community judging the accused by a jury of their peers is way better than some sort of unaccountable, authoritarian state bureaucracy doing the same, but the needed changes in our society are way, way beyond anything like that. I think you missed my point way back when about Adolph Eichmann.

Don't you think a discussion of Nazism that hinged on an apology based on the idea that Eichmann and so many others were merely trying to do their jobs well within a system they did not ultimately direct, would be kind of missing some important points?

I think you would agree there was much, much more wrong with the fascist regime in Germany. And much more beyond a question of Eichmanns fulfilling their role.

No I caught that "just doing their job" comment and really just didnt have anything to say about it. It is a very dificult discussion because essentially EVERYONE is just doing their job and that includes you and I and we are doing in SUPPORT of a world and indeed a country, that is very fucked up and involved in some very fucked up things and no matter how you slice it, whatever your profession may be, you are lending some support to that system, to that world, to that country indeed and all youre doing is 'just doing your job'. The guy flying the drones is just doing his job, the guy at the mess hall at Gitmo is just doing his job, I mean how far do you want to take that discussion my friend, it could go on forever to the point of utter insanity and its not that I disagree with you, indeed I agree 100% but again, what are we to do about that. I guess the difference in people are there are those who talk about things AND THAT IS OK there is nothing wrong with the philosophers and I appreciate them very much, and then there are those who want to DO SHIT, I am sort of a DO SHIT kind of guy and really, what are we to do about any of this, we are all just doing our jobs and each one of us are lending support to the very thing, the system, that we do not like. Lets all quit en mass, stop paying our bills and go and take all our money out of the bank at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, if we all did that there would be immediate and drastic change but that aint gonna happen and you know why, because everyone is too busy doing their jobs.

I appreciate the discussion lets continue I am not trying to stop it but I am not sure just how far you want to take that example because we can go real deep down that rabbit hole and the deeper you go the more confusing it all gets.

[compared2what?]

white people are quickly becoming the minorities in this country

White people are currently projected to make up 69 percent of the population by 2060. Actually.

But that's all white people. If what you mean when you say "white" is "non-hispanic white people only," it'll just be 43 percent.

That's obviously not a majority. But since it's more than enough to mean that they'll still be the largest racial demographic group in the country by a considerable margin, you can't really say they're quickly becoming a minority either.

And that's not just because there will still be more of them than any other race. It's also because there's no reason to think they won't still be the culturally dominant group. Less than none, really. That doesn't necessarily correspond to who has the demographic majority. Look at South Africa.

Anyway. Here's a chart. As you can see, it's true that Hispanic-Americans will then be the second largest demo. But that's all races put together. And they still only make it to 31 percent.

[American Dream]

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?

Let's put the connection to black and brown bodies gunned down in the street, lots of them and the killers most always exculpated, or disproportionately treated. Let's put the connection to a War on Drugs/War on Crime that mostly locks up the black and brown, creating untold dimensions of human suffering inside the walls and without, breeding generations of future problems.

As schools are defunded and shut down, new prisons are built- and some will profit, some will pay. Realtors are "just doing their job" as new ghettos are created and old neighborhoods are cleared out for those who will profit from gentrification. Who put the crack in the ghetto? We are all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others...

Let's put the connection to 500 years of colonial rule, where black and brown bodies are to be policed at the barrel of a gun- if not exterminated- by the more privileged caste of "white", who will gain benefits for their service to Empire, although they are mostly exploited too.

Let's put the connection to the racism which pervades the Society so completely that for many it is like water- just invisible. Do you think the cops are caught up in that?

Let's put the connection to American Justice- and the "Just Us" principle which protects and privileges some, as many, many die horrible deaths in wars of domination and occupation, be they at home or abroad, while those lucky enough to have a somewhat higher status ignore it, or at best assure themselves that they kinda had it coming...

Let's put the connection to a vast conspiracy that puts a priority on profit and power for a few, while most of us have no real say, no real voice, within their system.

Let's put the connection to the brainwashing deep inside us, conditioning us to accept, to minimize, or ignore the horrors of everyday life, to not understand how it is for the "other".

So hip, hip hooray for America- best nation on Earth- I think it needs to change deeply. I think we need to take power for ourselves. I don't believe the corporate media, I don't believe in the courts, the cops, the politicians. Each one is playing their part in something that's way bigger than any one of us. Get rid of one and a new one will take their place.

It is the System that we must challenge, that we must change, from the grassroots up. I question the System which framed and defined the killing of Trayvon Martin- and the ritual exculpation of the perpetrator. This is the place to begin from- and from there begins a whole world of struggle, a lifetime of resistance and of change...

I agree with everything you say there, AD, and I really cant even add to it and there is nothing further to say, you have pretty much covered it all but I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, I have never once said that America is the greatest nation on Earth, in fact in this time in our history we are far from that, very very far indeed. What I DID say is that our concept of due process, trial by jury IN THEORY is the best that I have ever seen and I know of no other system of jurisprudence anywhere in the world where the accused get the kind of rights that they get here in our system I personally feel it is very important that we always afford the accused those rights, no matter how much we hate and loath them because we cant be selective about such matters, we have to give a GZ the same sort of rights as an accused person that WE OURSELVES WOULD WANT IF WE WERE THE ACCUSED and if it just so happened that we were WRONGLY ACCUSED (unlike GZ of course). So yes, in fact I dont know of a better system of jurisprudence, anywhere in the world that is better than ours IN THEORY but I will be the first to admit that IN PRACTICE we often fail and usually an in epic manner and it is usually for the same reasons we fail at everything else that once made us a great nation, MONEY AND GREED. So yes we need to make the system better IN PRACTICE but in theory our due process of law and our protection of the accused and our right to not self incriminate and right not to be tried TWICE for the same crime if we dont like the result of the first time around ( no do overs for the state, double jeopardy etc) and our laws against cruel and unusual punishment and on and on and on, these are wonderful ideals and they often work and work well but again, because of greed, money, corruption and abuse of power, our ideals that are so wonderful in theory often do sometimes fail in practice and of course I am no happier about that than you are, what are we to do about it? I go to work everyday and try and change it and make it better, I am doing the best I can, I am one person but if I can keep one innocent person from being put in prison during my entire career I will consider that career to be a success because that is what I strive for every day, its the entire point of my existence professionally and the reason I get up and go to work everyday.

I do think that a community judging the accused by a jury of their peers is way better than some sort of unaccountable, authoritarian state bureaucracy doing the same, but the needed changes in our society are way, way beyond anything like that. I think you missed my point way back when about Adolph Eichmann.

Don't you think a discussion of Nazism that hinged on an apology based on the idea that Eichmann and so many others were merely trying to do their jobs well within a system they did not ultimately direct, would be kind of missing some important points?

I think you would agree there was much, much more wrong with the fascist regime in Germany. And much more beyond a question of Eichmanns fulfilling their role.

No I caught that "just doing their job" comment and really just didnt have anything to say about it. It is a very dificult discussion because essentially EVERYONE is just doing their job and that includes you and I and we are doing in SUPPORT of a world and indeed a country, that is very fucked up and involved in some very fucked up things and no matter how you slice it, whatever your profession may be, you are lending some support to that system, to that world, to that country indeed and all youre doing is 'just doing your job'. The guy flying the drones is just doing his job, the guy at the mess hall at Gitmo is just doing his job, I mean how far do you want to take that discussion my friend, it could go on forever to the point of utter insanity and its not that I disagree with you, indeed I agree 100% but again, what are we to do about that. I guess the difference in people are there are those who talk about things AND THAT IS OK there is nothing wrong with the philosophers and I appreciate them very much, and then there are those who want to DO SHIT, I am sort of a DO SHIT kind of guy and really, what are we to do about any of this, we are all just doing our jobs and each one of us are lending support to the very thing, the system, that we do not like. Lets all quit en mass, stop paying our bills and go and take all our money out of the bank at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, if we all did that there would be immediate and drastic change but that aint gonna happen and you know why, because everyone is too busy doing their jobs.

I appreciate the discussion lets continue I am not trying to stop it but I am not sure just how far you want to take that example because we can go real deep down that rabbit hole and the deeper you go the more confusing it all gets.

Here's the big problem with how I'm reading what you're saying- and what you're not saying: I agree that there are many important guarantees of due process that are codified into U.S. jurisprudence. I also think there are innumerable ways that those high minded principles of unbiased treatment are subverted in actual practice.. So I'm not calling for the hanging of George Zimmerman. This all goes so far beyond him, it's not funny.

It's as if your big concern is protecting George Zimmerman from a lynch mob. And that's so ass-backwards it's not funny. Again and again I tried to broaden the focus beyond questions of George Zimmerman and mostly you kinda ignore it.

What's going on for you in relation to this case? Which buttons get pushed? For me it's mostly about racism, social justice, white privilege, and the blockages to social change that we ourselves create.

[American Dream]

http://thesocietypages.org/sociologylen ... rtin-case/

Disembodied Racism and the Search for Racist Intent: The Trayvon Martin Case
by jeffdowd, Mar 22, 2012


The Trayvon Martin case has become a national media event complete with competing individual evaluations, competing definitions of racism and competing blame narratives. In these “racial events,” Americans propensity for individualistic analysis coalesces with America’s racialized culture in order to produce a mix of individual evaluations and sweeping claims about racial groups and the institutional privileges and disadvantages of different racial groups. In my experience, this process reinforces many of the flawed ideas about race that sociologists regularly debunk and challenge.

Americans disparage racism because of its ultimate impact on individuals, but too often imagine that free and unencumbered choices of individuals are the sole source of racism. Americans are likely to view racism as solely individual acts of bad or ignorant individuals (Zamudio and Rios 2006, 485). In this case, a great deal of speculation has centered around whether or not the shooter uttered a racial slur on the 911 call. Indeed, the shooter may have been motivated by a strong belief in racial stereotypes about blacks and negative affect towards blacks. However, such individual level analyses promises to yield definitive answers of guilt or innocence that ignore or dismiss the role of culture and structure and reduce racism to “isolated incidents” (Bush 2004, 72) or create a search for a blameworthy racist in order to confirm the existence of racism (Ford 2008).

The risk in these cases is that we deny the systemic nature of racism. In many ways, media discourse turns Bonilla-Silva’s (2003) reference to ‘racism without racists’ (used to describe how a racialized social system may exist without individual-level hatred of minority groups) on its head by positing that we have races, racism, and racists but no racial system. This formulation is not simply the result of conservative politics and its outsized influence on media. Even those discourses associated with liberalism, such as multiculturalism and diversity, frequently ignore systemic racial inequality (Michaels 2006; Bell and Hartmann 2007) focusing on etiquette rather than equality.

Most Americans vociferously deny that they are racist, even those who use and believe racial stereotypes (Myers 2005, 105) or engage in behaviors formerly labeled racism (Johnson et al. 2000, 103). As Brown et al. (2005) notes, “Today, many white Americans are concerned only with whether they are, individually, guilty of something called racism (4). Accusation of racism will likely provoke defensive reactions as they often seem directed at individual racists, rather than racist behavior, ideas, practices, structures, or policies. Under such a construction, if there is white racism or just white privilege then a critical mass of whites must be racists.

As researchers have noted racism (rather than manslaughter or murder) is not reducible to individual intent. Whether or not someone endorses racial stereotypes, they may still come under their influence. We notice the race of strangers because we grew up in a society where race (and its physical markers) are significant, skin color provides clues (or we have been socialized to believe that skin color provides clues) about whether a person is, for example, dangerous or not. Racial stereotypes often influence our judgments and behaviors indirectly by coloring (pun intended) ambiguous information (Pager and Quillian 2005) like walking around a neighborhood looking at houses.

Some meaningful discussion of racism will peak through here and there as the media coverage, but any cursory glance at internet comments around the story will reveal myriad attempts to define the larger social issues using the case to make sweeping generalizations about who or what is to blame for racism in America. These debates often center on where the floating accusation of racism produced by the controversy belongs.

Berard (2008) urges academics not to ignore the social psychology of institutional racism. He laments that too many academics “treat institutional racism in terms of the negative effects of institutions on minorities, neglecting, or explicitly dismissing the social-psychological questions about the intentions, the beliefs, and the concerns of those individuals who do the work of the institutions in question and who formulate policies and priorities in these institutions” (737). I have heeded that call here. Indeed, several social-psychological questions emerge from this case. However, a single case is not evidence of any claim. For example, a research study could examine what role race played in passing Florida’s self-defense laws, or in gun ownership in general. But, if we find a legislator that sponsored the Florida law sent out a racist email we cannot then say self-defense laws are motivated by racist attitudes.



Further Reading:

Tim Berard – The Neglected Social Psychology of Institutional Racism

Clayton Mosher – Racial Profiling/Biased Policing

[Hunter]

No I am not ignoring it, the thread is about that case that is why I am talking about it, I dont really give two shits about GZ, this is the case thats being discussed so I was discussing it and I also said if you wanted to discuss something further lets do it and I have tried to engage you in that as much as I can while juggling four other apples a laptop and two cell phones and three employees. I am work so my attention is obviously not 100% here but dont accuse me of keeping a thread about the zimmermen case, about the zimmerman case, I mean its actually about Trayvon of course but the two go together insofar as what happened.


I understand and agree there are much deeper issues here, perhaps we should have a thread about the problems with the American justice system, that would be fine by me, again I am not trying to keep the focus on zimmerman, that is simply what the thread is about my friend and that is really all there is too it, I have no agenda and absolutely no intention or desire to protect him from anything, I have made very clear my displeasure with the outcome of that trial, in fact.

The only thing I MIGHT be accused of trying to protect from a lynch mob is the justice system itself, I think all my posts have made clear THAT is what I am defending and NOT GZ.


People all over are asking what happened, why wasnt he convicted, and the answer is the same one I have given, the evidence for 2nd degree just wasnt there unfortunately, I wish that were not the case, I am not at all happy that he got away with killing Trayvon and there is no doubt had GZ minded his own business Trayvon would be alive today, GZ caused it all because of his stupidity I dont argue that point but that is different animal than convicting someone in court of 2nd degree murder, or of anything, really.

Anyway, its time for me to get a few things done, perhaps you some others will engage you in broadening the spectrum of this discussion and when I get a free minute to return I will be able to see where you have been wanting to take it but I have somehow prevented it from happening...=)


Have a good day man, I really did enjoy the discussion and I look forward to more of it but my free time is up for the day I have appointments to keep.

Take it easy on them.

[American Dream]

No I am not ignoring it, the thread is about that case that is why I am talking about it, I dont really give two shits about GZ, this is the case thats being discussed so I was discussing it and I also said if you wanted to discuss something further lets do it and I have tried to engage you in that as much as I can while juggling four other apples a laptop and two cell phones and three employees. I am work so my attention is obviously not 100% here but dont accuse me of keeping a thread about the zimmermen case, about the zimmerman case, I mean its actually about Trayvon of course but the two go together insofar as what happened.


I understand and agree there are much deeper issues here, perhaps we should have a thread about the problems with the American justice system, that would be fine by me, again I am not trying to keep the focus on zimmerman, that is simply what the thread is about my friend and that is really all there is too it, I have no agenda and absolutely no intention or desire to protect him from anything, I have made very clear my displeasure with the outcome of that trial, in fact.

The only thing I MIGHT be accused of trying to protect from a lynch mob is the justice system itself, I think all my posts have made clear THAT is what I am defending and NOT GZ.


People all over are asking what happened, why wasnt he convicted, and the answer is the same one I have given, the evidence for 2nd degree just wasnt there unfortunately, I wish that were not the case, I am not at all happy that he got away with killing Trayvon and there is no doubt had GZ minded his own business Trayvon would be alive today, GZ caused it all because of his stupidity I dont argue that point but that is different animal than convicting someone in court of 2nd degree murder, or of anything, really.

Anyway, its time for me to get a few things done, perhaps you some others will engage you in broadening the spectrum of this discussion and when I get a free minute to return I will be able to see where you have been wanting to take it but I have somehow prevented it from happening...=)


Have a good day man, I really did enjoy the discussion and I look forward to more of it but my free time is up for the day I have appointments to keep.

Take it easy on them.

I think the problems preventing George Zimmerman's conviction go far beyond simply saying "the evidence for 2nd degree just wasnt there". I can't claim to have studied the case in depth- I watched none of it- but here are a few issues that quickly come to mind:

Biases in the initial investigation.

Biases in prosecuting at all.

Biases and inequity in the law as written.

Biases and inequity in the law as practiced.

Evidence gathered- or not.

Jury selection- and the biases in those chosen.

The judge's mandates to the jury.

Manipulation of jury biases as each side presented their case.

Unequal access to resources in the legal sphere.

Unequal access to supportive media.

Government biases and agenda in general.


I'm sure there's much, much more- maybe others will add to this (admittedly sketchy) list...

[8bitagent]

I think race is extremely difficult to talk about.

My limited personal experiences... was that when I dated a very attractive black (African) woman in London, it was like unexpectedly crashing into a different world, full of hostility from both whites and blacks, some covert, some not. For me, it was instantaneous - literally just walking arm in arm down the street, it started immediately - like a switch.

Except it wasnt similar for her, it was life as usual. She experienced what she described as a huge amount of misogyny (sometimes violently so) from every black man she had dated. So she gave up.

I also had the experience of being jumped and robbed by a knifewielding gang of black teens, which was traumatising, not to mention hospitalising.

I think there is a huge amount of hate between people of different races all over the planet. Persians hate Turkics hate Chinese hate Central Africans hate East Africans hate West Africans hate Toureg hate Arabs hate Berbers hate Spaniards hate Mexicans.

Fuck racism.

Exactly. Hence why I reject the political correct gatekeeper police mentality from the liberals and the vomit inducing "coded" language from the right.

As I said earlier, a black kid like Trayvon has every right to make it home safe in a white community as a white, black or whoever person has a right to be safe in an inner city. I sometimes feel like it's racist to bring up the fact that the number one killer of blacks in America is other blacks. In my view the racist power structure loves this. I dont feel MLK would be all too thrilled knowing a black man finally became president if it also meant the unrelenting
tragedy that befell the black community: massively disproportionate incarceration(talk about a conspiracy), violence/death, AIDS(second to the gay community), massive out of wedlock births, systemic domestic abuse, hopelessness, drugs. What happened to the Native Americans happened to large swaths of the black community. IE: This implanted virus by the powers that be after they were done robbing people of dignity.

What happened to Korea town in LA during 1992 is the most visible example of cross cultural mistrust or hate, but you're right it's across the board. I don't get this hate or mistrust. This isnt fucking Serbia.
I feel grateful and not guilty at all about having my cake(being in a crime free area) and eating it to(extremely racially and culturally diverse neighborhoods) In just this little park around my corner I saw a woman in a full on burqa with her two kids stopping to pet this little dog two yuppy types were walking. There's just a real sense of happiness that I didn't see living in poorer areas that were also mixed.

I notice that Hispanics tend to be the only Americans other than recent immigrants that have a strong family unit. So many whites and some inner city black families seem very dysfunctional, and I think this might
also have a bearing on some issues.

Call it naive or simple, but the late Rodney King said one of the most profound things I can recall in the last few decades on the topic.

[Freitag]

As I said earlier, a black kid like Trayvon has every right to make it home safe in a white community

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, that's why it was self-defense, and why Zimmerman was acquitted.

[seemslikeadream]

you don't know that there is no evidence to that fact...only two eye witnesses and one is dead...the other is a proven liar

[conniption]

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?

Let's put the connection to black and brown bodies gunned down in the street, lots of them and the killers most always exculpated, or disproportionately treated. Let's put the connection to a War on Drugs/War on Crime that mostly locks up the black and brown, creating untold dimensions of human suffering inside the walls and without, breeding generations of future problems.

As schools are defunded and shut down, new prisons are built- and some will profit, some will pay. Realtors are "just doing their job" as new ghettos are created and old neighborhoods are cleared out for those who will profit from gentrification. Who put the crack in the ghetto? We are all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others...

Let's put the connection to 500 years of colonial rule, where black and brown bodies are to be policed at the barrel of a gun- if not exterminated- by the more privileged caste of "white", who will gain benefits for their service to Empire, although they are mostly exploited too.

Let's put the connection to the racism which pervades the Society so completely that for many it is like water- just invisible. Do you think the cops are caught up in that?

Let's put the connection to American Justice- and the "Just Us" principle which protects and privileges some, as many, many die horrible deaths in wars of domination and occupation, be they at home or abroad, while those lucky enough to have a somewhat higher status ignore it, or at best assure themselves that they kinda had it coming...

Let's put the connection to a vast conspiracy that puts a priority on profit and power for a few, while most of us have no real say, no real voice, within their system.

Let's put the connection to the brainwashing deep inside us, conditioning us to accept, to minimize, or ignore the horrors of everyday life, to not understand how it is for the "other".

So hip, hip hooray for America- best nation on Earth- I think it needs to change deeply. I think we need to take power for ourselves. I don't believe the corporate media, I don't believe in the courts, the cops, the politicians. Each one is playing their part in something that's way bigger than any one of us. Get rid of one and a new one will take their place.

It is the System that we must challenge, that we must change, from the grassroots up. I question the System which framed and defined the killing of Trayvon Martin- and the ritual exculpation of the perpetrator. This is the place to begin from- and from there begins a whole world of struggle, a lifetime of resistance and of change...

I agree with everything you say there, AD, and I really cant even add to it and there is nothing further to say, you have pretty much covered it all but I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, I have never once said that America is the greatest nation on Earth, in fact in this time in our history we are far from that, very very far indeed. What I DID say is that our concept of due process, trial by jury IN THEORY is the best that I have ever seen and I know of no other system of jurisprudence anywhere in the world where the accused get the kind of rights that they get here in our system I personally feel it is very important that we always afford the accused those rights, no matter how much we hate and loath them because we cant be selective about such matters, we have to give a GZ the same sort of rights as an accused person that WE OURSELVES WOULD WANT IF WE WERE THE ACCUSED and if it just so happened that we were WRONGLY ACCUSED (unlike GZ of course). So yes, in fact I dont know of a better system of jurisprudence, anywhere in the world that is better than ours IN THEORY but I will be the first to admit that IN PRACTICE we often fail and usually an in epic manner and it is usually for the same reasons we fail at everything else that once made us a great nation, MONEY AND GREED. So yes we need to make the system better IN PRACTICE but in theory our due process of law and our protection of the accused and our right to not self incriminate and right not to be tried TWICE for the same crime if we dont like the result of the first time around ( no do overs for the state, double jeopardy etc) and our laws against cruel and unusual punishment and on and on and on, these are wonderful ideals and they often work and work well but again, because of greed, money, corruption and abuse of power, our ideals that are so wonderful in theory often do sometimes fail in practice and of course I am no happier about that than you are, what are we to do about it? I go to work everyday and try and change it and make it better, I am doing the best I can, I am one person but if I can keep one innocent person from being put in prison during my entire career I will consider that career to be a success because that is what I strive for every day, its the entire point of my existence professionally and the reason I get up and go to work everyday.

I do think that a community judging the accused by a jury of their peers is way better than some sort of unaccountable, authoritarian state bureaucracy doing the same, but the needed changes in our society are way, way beyond anything like that. I think you missed my point way back when about Adolph Eichmann.

Don't you think a discussion of Nazism that hinged on an apology based on the idea that Eichmann and so many others were merely trying to do their jobs well within a system they did not ultimately direct, would be kind of missing some important points?

I think you would agree there was much, much more wrong with the fascist regime in Germany. And much more beyond a question of Eichmanns fulfilling their role.

No I caught that "just doing their job" comment and really just didnt have anything to say about it. It is a very dificult discussion because essentially EVERYONE is just doing their job and that includes you and I and we are doing in SUPPORT of a world and indeed a country, that is very fucked up and involved in some very fucked up things and no matter how you slice it, whatever your profession may be, you are lending some support to that system, to that world, to that country indeed and all youre doing is 'just doing your job'. The guy flying the drones is just doing his job, the guy at the mess hall at Gitmo is just doing his job, I mean how far do you want to take that discussion my friend, it could go on forever to the point of utter insanity and its not that I disagree with you, indeed I agree 100% but again, what are we to do about that. I guess the difference in people are there are those who talk about things AND THAT IS OK there is nothing wrong with the philosophers and I appreciate them very much, and then there are those who want to DO SHIT, I am sort of a DO SHIT kind of guy and really, what are we to do about any of this, we are all just doing our jobs and each one of us are lending support to the very thing, the system, that we do not like. Lets all quit en mass, stop paying our bills and go and take all our money out of the bank at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, if we all did that there would be immediate and drastic change but that aint gonna happen and you know why, because everyone is too busy doing their jobs.

I appreciate the discussion lets continue I am not trying to stop it but I am not sure just how far you want to take that example because we can go real deep down that rabbit hole and the deeper you go the more confusing it all gets.

Here's the big problem with how I'm reading what you're saying- and what you're not saying: I agree that there are many important guarantees of due process that are codified into U.S. jurisprudence. I also think there are innumerable ways that those high minded principles of unbiased treatment are subverted in actual practice.. So I'm not calling for the hanging of George Zimmerman. This all goes so far beyond him, it's not funny.

It's as if your big concern is protecting George Zimmerman from a lynch mob. And that's so ass-backwards it's not funny. Again and again I tried to broaden the focus beyond questions of George Zimmerman and mostly you kinda ignore it.

What's going on for you in relation to this case? Which buttons get pushed? For me it's mostly about racism, social justice, white privilege, and the blockages to social change that we ourselves create.

*

Excuse me, but, ^^^^^^ That is absolutely ridiculous. You guys are making this thread un-fucking-readable.

Fuk off!

*

MODS!!!!