'Florida'

[cybercoma]

Nooooooo..... it doesn't seem that way at all. Every time bad judgement is shown doesn't = racism.

Why was Martin suspicious? Because he was black. That's racism. He wasn't breaking into cars, looking in people's windows, or doing anything other than walking home with a pack of skittles. Edited July 18, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Why was Martin suspicious? Because he was black. That's racism.

Noooo. He was suspicious because Martin was a kid in a hoodie and there had recently been burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood. If there was any stereotyping, it was in regards to teens in hoodies. As I've already pointed out, when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman the race of the suspect, Zimmerman wasn't even sure - he said "he looks Black." Now. Martin made the "cracker" comment, so do you think Martin's actions were motivated by race?

[cybercoma]

Zimmerman wasn't sure.

Zimmerman said, "he looks black."

[Guest American Woman]

Zimmerman wasn't sure.

Zimmerman said, "he looks black."

Because he was asked, point blank, what race the suspect was. There's nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was suspicious because Martin was Black. As I said, some will make any crime other than 'white crime' about race. Ridiculous.

Edited to add: So. Once again. Martin made the "cracker" comment, so do you think Martin's actions were motivated by race?

Edited July 18, 2013 by American Woman

[jbg]

Zimmerman wasn't sure.

Zimmerman said, "he looks black."

Yes, in response to the 911 operator's request for a description.

[Hudson Jones]

Sounds like American Woman is in denial.

Why is this happening:

According to the Tampa Bay Times, people in Florida who kill a black person walk free 73 percent of the time in Stand Your Ground cases, while those who kill a white person go free 59 percent of the time.

Because of racism.

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds like American Woman is in denial.

Why is this happening:

According to the Tampa Bay Times, people in Florida who kill a black person walk free 73 percent of the time in Stand Your Ground cases, while those who kill a white person go free 59 percent of the time.

Because of racism.

Did you even read the article you cited??

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play.

The analysis, for example, found that black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed. They also were more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.

[guyser]

Did you even read the article you cited??

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play.

The analysis, for example, found that black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed. They also were more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.

dont bring facts to an argument with him.

No place for that!

Lovely, slayed by his own link.

[WWWTT]

Why was Martin suspicious? Because he was black. That's racism. He wasn't breaking into cars, looking in people's windows, or doing anything other than walking home with a pack of skittles.

Here's a good link!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/18/2316651/eric-holder-i-had-to-tell-my-son-how-to-protect-himself-from-the-police-because-he-is-black/

Try dismissing this guy's opinion!

WWWTT

[Shady]

Here's a good link!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/18/2316651/eric-holder-i-had-to-tell-my-son-how-to-protect-himself-from-the-police-because-he-is-black/

Try dismissing this guy's opinion!

WWWTT

ThinkProgress is a far leftwing blog/website.

[cybercoma]

Your response is an ad hominem. It doesn't disprove the arguments.

[Shady]

Your response is an ad hominem. It doesn't disprove the arguments.

Cool. I'm sure if I post Ann Coulters opinion, it'll be given the same relevance. Regardless, Charles Barkley's opinion is most apt. He's not a political partisan. Either is Jimmy Carter who also agrees.

[scribblet]

Here's a good link!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/18/2316651/eric-holder-i-had-to-tell-my-son-how-to-protect-himself-from-the-police-because-he-is-black/

Try dismissing this guy's opinion!

WWWTT

I posted this earlier try to dismiss this one..

http://derryckgreen.net/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-verdict/The jury has ruled- considering the evidence presented, and rightly in my opinion- that George Zimmerman is innocent. Despite the considerable emotion surrounding this case, justice has been served. Not “justice for Trayvon” and not “justice for George”; but simply justice.

[bleeding heart]

I posted this earlier try to dismiss this one..

http://derryckgreen.net/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-verdict/The jury has ruled- considering the evidence presented, and rightly in my opinion- that George Zimmerman is innocent. Despite the considerable emotion surrounding this case, justice has been served. Not “justice for Trayvon” and not “justice for George”; but simply justice.

no one has ruled anyone "innocent," outside of extra-criminal proceedings dealing with cases of, for example, prosecutorial malfeasance.

He wasn't found "innocent"...and doesn't have to be, as that's not the purpose of the justice system.

[-TSS-]

Why is Obama himself stirring the pot by making statements like: "If I had a son he would look just like Trayvon" or "Trayvon was just like I was 35 years ago".

He isn't really helping things by making such statements. On the contrary. It would be in everyone's best interests to let the dust settle and hope for the whole thing to die down.

[Guest American Woman]

Why is Obama himself stirring the pot by making statements like: "If I had a son he would look just like Trayvon" or "Trayvon was just like I was 35 years ago".

He isn't really helping things by making such statements. On the contrary. It would be in everyone's best interests to let the dust settle and hope for the whole thing to die down.

I have to agree with you regarding Obama's statements; it's downright ignorant for him to be saying such things, IMO. I don't think it would be best to hope for the whole thing to die down, though, as I think this case does raise some questions - but not racial questions.

[Hudson Jones]

Did you even read the article you cited??

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play.

The analysis, for example, found that black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed. They also were more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.

I sure did and this is also part of the article. I hope you didn't skip this:

A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.

"I don't think judges or prosecutors or whoever works in the field of criminal justice is consciously saying black life is worth less than that of other ethnicities,'' said Kareem Jordan, a criminologist at the University of Central Florida. "But at the end of the day, it could be something that's subconscious going on if you look at how the media depicts black life.''

Here is more of what you didn't paste:

The analysis, however, is supported by numerous studies showing disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system. Studies have found that all-white juries are more likely to convict black defendants. Someone who murders a white person is more likely to get the death penalty than someone who kills a black person.

Did you read that?

Adora Obi Nweze, state president of the NAACP, said she was not surprised that people claiming "stand your ground'' escaped penalty more often when the victim was black. But she sharply questioned whether "stand your ground'' really helps black defendants.

"It's very difficult to isolate the data on one law,'' she said, "when we have so many laws where blacks are disproportionately not released, not given the kind of equity you want in justice."

So yeah, U.S. has a racism problem and this is shown by facts, such as the numerous studies which show the disparities in the way blacks and whites are treated by the criminal justice system.

[cybercoma]

no one has ruled anyone "innocent," outside of extra-criminal proceedings dealing with cases of, for example, prosecutorial malfeasance.

He wasn't found "innocent"...and doesn't have to be, as that's not the purpose of the justice system.

Exactly. He was found not guilty by virtue of the evidence presented, which means that the jury believes there is reasonable doubt.

But the jury did make a procedural mistake, according to the juror interviewed on Anderson Cooper. She said that they believed Zimmerman was partly responsible for the confrontation, but that they had to acquit him based on the Stand Your Ground Law. This is a misunderstanding of the particulars of that law. If Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation, then Stand Your Ground does not apply, yet they acquitted him anyway.

[Shady]

Exactly. He was found not guilty by virtue of the evidence presented, which means that the jury believes there is reasonable doubt.But the jury did make a procedural mistake, according to the juror interviewed on Anderson Cooper. She said that they believed Zimmerman was partly responsible for the confrontation, but that they had to acquit him based on the Stand Your Ground Law. This is a misunderstanding of the particulars of that law. If Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation, then Stand Your Ground does not apply, yet they acquitted him anyway.

The defense never used stand your ground. It was a regular self defense case.

[Guest American Woman]

The defense never used stand your ground. It was a regular self defense case.

It still played a part in the trial, and most definitely in the verdict. The jurors were instructed by the judge to consider the law in their decision:

The jury instructions—and a reason for their verdict: Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions (PDF) that they should consider the law:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict.

"Stand Your Ground" Did Indeed Play a Role in the Zimmerman Trial

[cybercoma]

The defense never used stand your ground. It was a regular self defense case.

I didn't say the defence used Stand Your Ground. See AW's post above.

[jbg]

Why is Obama himself stirring the pot by making statements like: "If I had a son he would look just like Trayvon" or "Trayvon was just like I was 35 years ago".

He isn't really helping things by making such statements. On the contrary. It would be in everyone's best interests to let the dust settle and hope for the whole thing to die down.

He was elected by having the pot stirred. He is not a post-racial President. I do not believe he plays a calming role in the country's racial divides.

In fact, quite the contrary.

[The_Squid]

He was elected by having the pot stirred. He is not a post-racial President. I do not believe he plays a calming role in the country's racial divides.

In fact, quite the contrary.

In other words, it would be better if he was white and didn't mention race at all, despite the massive race issues in the USA.

[jbg]

In other words, it would be better if he was white and didn't mention race at all, despite the massive race issues in the USA.

No. it would be better if he emphasized that 17 year olds have more constructive things to be doing than looking for trouble and finding it.

[The_Squid]

Lol. Looking for trouble.... They should know not to wander out of their neighbourhoods, eh?