Obi, what made this one diferent is our "post-racial" President decided to insert himself into a local matter for the sake of drumming up racial resentment prior to an election

^I've heard that and I disagree...

To be clear--I think it was INCREDIBLY STUPID of Obama to opine on the matter.
VERY stupid.
A rare crack in what's otherwise a (usually) well-crafted political persona.
So I'm not defending his comments.

I'm just saying I don't think the statements he made were 1. Over the line or 2. An incitement to any larger scale of action.

A bit like George Bush opining in the Terri Schiavo case (and funnily enough, that was 2005, the first year of HIS second term, a year that saw Katrina and tons of other problems begin to crush his Presidency...and now it's the first year of Obama's second term and things are beginning to crush his presidency similarly, but I digress.)

Should either President have opined on a very divisive but also very local case?
No.
Did they?
Yep.
Did it backfire?
It sure did.
Were either malicious in their opining?
I don't think so.

So I don't think he was drumming up racial tension--just that he made a bad, bad decision to comment on the matter at all.

@orathaic,

"(and as for stand your ground, it is unclear which of them was on top of the other when Zimmerman shot Martin) Given the fact that Zimmerman seems to have approached Martin, it is entirely possible that Martin's actions were in self-defence, and thus legally justified. So, hooray for a system which gets people killed, i'm glad to see you support it."

I'm sorry, but this is all really bad reasoning, and on two different levels.

The way reasonable doubt works is that somebody gets acquitted if there is a decent possibility that a story is true in which their actions WERE legal. So yes -- you're obviously right that, if Martin was attacked first and was defending himself, and then was shot, then it was murder, and no kind of self-defense law applies to Zimmerman.

However, there is a good deal of doubt that that was the case. There is a good possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was the person on top, in which case self-defense was justified for Zimmerman. (Who approached whom is really irrelevant -- you're allowed to approach people on the street and start discussions with them).

So that's one flaw in your reasoning. The other is -- it's really not THAT unclear who was on top of whom. Zimmerman had multiple injuries on his head, a broken nose, and blood and contusions on the back of his head. Martin had no injuries other than the gunshot wound and a scratch on his hand. Of course that says nothing about who started it, but it says a good deal about who was getting his butt kicked.

@gav,

"That makes him a racist, for looking at Trayvon and assuming he was a criminal."

No it doesn't. He had other reasons for assuming Trayvon was a criminal, namely, that he was walking slowly in the rain and looking into houses. That may be a stupid reason for thinking somebody is a criminal, but it's not a racist one. Actually, if you listen to the phone call, he wasn't even sure Trayvon was black at the beginning. (And don't say he was just trying to appear non-racist, because he happily clarified that as soon as it became clear).

Also, I'll point out again -- you can't really use his prior 911 calls about black males as any evidence about race one way or the other when SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION WERE ACTUALLY GUILTY OF ROBBERY. Moreover, he also called about people who were not black males. He basically called the police about every dang thing.

"Yes, I deny it, because the documentation is shit. The only people claiming that Zimmerman made any protest about Ware *are Zimmerman's family.* Show me somebody outside of his family who backs up the assertion."

OK, here is the Miami Herald doing so, from a recording of the town hall meeting where Zimmerman did it:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/22/2813681/zimmerman-rode-with-cops-ripped.html

Please admit that you were wrong.

"Yes we can. He straight up lied about the bushes. There were no bushes there. That shows he was making up a story as he went along."

That would be a convincing argument, if the human memory were perfect. In the event, however, if you were walking in the dark in a neighborhood and somebody jumped out and confronted you, you might well misremember the immediate geographic context and where they actually came from -- your focus would be on them.

"You objected to my pointing out that Dickfighter was making a specific assertion of culpability for one party. Now you're changing it up: it's fine for you that he makes such assertions, but you want to object to me saying otherwise. Don't act like you're not biased as fuck."

You're the one making certain assertions. Martin did this, Martin didn't do that, for sure. I took gunfighter's post to be laying out what he saw as the most probable story, or the one the jury might have believed possible. If he was saying that we know for sure that that happened, then yes -- I disdagree, we can't. That said, there IS more evidence for his story than for yours (though it is not conclusive by any means).

"Then at least put up a pretense of fairness, and object to Dickfighter's insults about "brainwashing." "

But I don't object to it. You do seem very brainwashed.

@jmo,

"The Stand your Ground Law just made it legal for a kid to die because he made a bad clothing choice and walked in a neighborhood that happened to be experiencing robberies."

Again, no it didn't. The SYGL wasn't actually relevant in any way to this case. It would have been relevant if Zimmerman could have escaped and chose not to. However, he couldn't have (if his story and that of several of the witnesses was true), since he was pinned under Martin.

So the SYGL has nothing to do with anything.

"The way reasonable doubt works is that somebody gets acquitted if there is a decent possibility that a story is true in which their actions WERE legal."

Erm...that's not really the legal definition of reasonable doubt, or not in the UK anyway. Reasonable doubt is about burdens of proof, not hypothetical scenarios that could have been legal. All that is required is that a reasonable person would have reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty based upon the case of the prosecution.

Maybe it doesn't quite work like that in the USA. I would have thought it did though.

@smeck: i accept your points. And it is tough to see in this case who was at fault - and yes, the evidence of who was on top of whom at the time of the shooting seems pretty good (though witness accounts are vague, as i said, so it is hard to tell what actually happened)

With the exception of the culture which, i think, encourages violence - but that is another conversation...

@semck

I think one could make a reasonable case that his gun and the SYGL gave Zimmerman the confidence to do something incredibly stupid, such as chase down someone he suspected to be a criminal.

Hereward,

You're correct, it's about burden of proof. You're also correct that there need be no alternative story provided by the defense. However, if the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence that there does not exist any other explanation with non-negligible probability of truth, then the burden has been met, whereas if they have not, then it has not. So one can look at it in terms of the space of possible stories, and assigning probabilities to them, and there is work to that effect.

A clearer statement would have been that, "under the burden of 'no reasonable doubt,' one is entitled to an acquital if (but not only if) one presents a story with a decent probability of truth under which one's actions were legal."

"I think one could make a reasonable case that his gun and the SYGL gave Zimmerman the confidence to do something incredibly stupid, such as chase down someone he suspected to be a criminal. "

That's possible, abge. On the other hand, even the absence of the SYGL should have sufficed for that, since, again, American law minus SYGL plus gun should be sufficient to guarantee that you can use your gun to defend yourself if your life is in danger (even if you do have to try to run away if you can).

In any event, we're far into speculative territory now, as well as tenuously relevant. A lot of laws and a lot of dumb misunderstandings of laws give people confidence to do all kinds of really stupid things.

@obi (in response to your response to me). In this case you seem to be pushing it out 'entirely'!

This case, to be honest, isn't such a 'big deal'. Most crimes, no matter how horrific they are, are not a 'big deal'. But that's an empty thing to say - you might as well say "it's not the end of the world", sure it's not the worst thing that could possibly ever happen - but it's still fucking awful that a 17 year old got killed, and it's sad that race played a part in it. I do care a lot (more even), about all the gang deaths - but this thread isn't about them, so i'm not going to avoid the topic and point to something worse. Almost everything has something worse we can compare it too - that's not the point.

Besides the fact there's a difference between a white guy wearingg an abercrombie hoodie and a black guy wearing a standard hoodie, the point isn't just that.

And i'm not inclined to see the media through coloured lenses, but this is a world where colour is important, and although you don't see colour like some do (which is great), it still makes a difference. Sometimes it can be small unimportant things (hey when I was at my almost all white high school, if I wore a cap or a hoodie or anything like that I would be called a "gangster" and other things - all in a lighthearted way, but my white friends never got the same treatment, and this illustrates just a basic perception problem), but it can be bigger things, like seeing blacks as more likely to commit crimes/be dangerous.

And I agree the media are shit stirring shits, and you can go overboard with the racism thing - but to counter it you've gone too far! It's like when people first became "PC", they became over "PC", but as a counter some things which genuinely are wrong are just labelled as being "too PC".

Just my opinion.

WHY -- are the individuals that thunk Zimmerman was guilty, that think the system is broken, or worse corrupt -- why are YOU not out on the streets, insteadof mentally masturbating and posing on line in WebDip.

Put your belief in action - start a street protest. Otherwise, your just knee-jerk media sheep spewing back the rhetoric of your favorite provactuer web-sites and TV talking heads.

Man up, Bitches!!!

@smeck, what do you think about the situation. Do you have a problem with what Martin did, what Zimmerman did, with the jury, or with the laws that allowed the outcome that happened? I'm just curious, you've spent most of the conversation talking about others views. You're probably correct about the Stand your ground law, as I've said, I'm not as legally inclined as you are, but I do have a huge problem with any combination of laws allowing a death with no repercussions. Do you have a similar view or something entirely different? I don't want to debate your view just curious so feel free to pm me a reply.

@semck83 People don't need laws to have the courage to do dumb things.

@krellin, street protests discredit the points you are making, and in recent years at least have been rather ineffective in western countries.

SD - street protests...or ANYTHING other than privately bitching and posing on WebDIp ---IF YOU TRULY believe this is some horrendous act of racial injustice --- are better than nothing. And you are 100% wrong about the effectiveness of street demostrations.

Tea Party demonstrations changed an election - because they actually spoke to what people BELIEVED and they massively changed the outcome of the 2010 idterm elections.

The wall streetm protests failed because is was an obviously bogus movement by wanna-be hippies (elitest youth with daddy's money in the bank, allowing them to camp out in a park and play radical.)

And -- the Zimmerman protest will never happen because the Race-Baiters on the left realize their attempts to foster civil unrest will never fly, given the overehelmig evidence that Zimmy was innocent, and this had NOhING to do with race, or injustice.

But I'm glad you took the bait and played my game!

@krellin, there is a big scope between those two acts, and you can do something without street protesting, and having debates on a forum full of intelligent people isn't a problem.

wall street, anti-iraq in the uk, the riots in the uk a year back, student protests in the uk, there are a lot of protests that do nothing. and lots of it is because they are bogus movements, but we live with a generally bogus youth.

Zimmy was not innocent, at least in a moral sense.

How could I resist when you make everything so fun!?

I just want to gloat that I was right about there not being riots.

@Socrates It's hard to have morality in a secular society. Whose morality is the yard stick in which to measure our actions?

Zimmy was innocent according to Florida law, thats a fact, and there is nothing racist about that fact.

Also, +1 Czech.

Wait, now the feds are getting involved....


this may take a while.

@Krellin: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/14/oakland-demonstrators-burn-flags-smash-cop-car-after-zimmerman-verdict-photos/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Was this what you wanted?

"Wait, now the feds are getting involved....


this may take a while."
If this isn't double jeopardy I don't know what is. Zimmerman was found not guilty, now lets just move on.

This case was turned into a media circus, and I don't like it.

Not guilty in Fla of a state charge. The Fed could charge just like the Rodney King cops. They got of in Calif, but the Feds nailed them . Seems like double jeopardy, but we need the US Supreme Court to decide since technically they would be two different statutes that he would be charged with IF he gets charged.

My prediction - it blows over.

Yeah the Feds would likely take him up on civil rights? I think that was what I heard. I think double jeopardy only applies if he's being charged for the same crime. He's off on the murder rap, but they can come back with other charges if there is enough evidence.

charged for the same or similar crime

SD - many people every day are guilty of "immoral acts" - adukterers, drug users, homosexuals (depending on your upbringing) highlightingmthe fluidity of what is "moral". THANK GOD our courts do not judge us on morality - and to suggest Zimmy isguilty on "moral" grounds is fucking asisnine. TM was guilty moral grounds,too - he picked a fight wth an adult . this is immoral in my book. So chill with the moronic "morality" stuff before try and convict you and the grounds of general assholery andpublic display of douchebagginess.

As for the faioure of public movements - again, thanks for playing and MAKING MY POINT.

Yes, public protests fail when they have no grounding in reality and are "bogus" movemet.

Anti-Iraq War protestors by people that overwhelmingly re.elected Bush are bogus, Anti.Iraq war protests by Left wing Politicians that supported and voted FOR the war before deciding against it are bogus.

Anti-Walstreet protests that are initially constructed and supported by the media and the same politicians that take contributions and give money toWall Street are bogus, especially when the sheep sleeping in the parks are rich little white kids with their iPhones charged and ready to pass the day, and thir backbacks are filled with a quarter ounce the pass the night away.

Yes, bogus movements by hyppcrites and fools that had no backing of the public at large.

The Tea Party movement was a *real* grass roots movement that was mocked by the media, degraded by politicians and yet grew in strength and popularity Desoite the negative press - and they overwhelimngly changed the outcome of the midterms that election cycle, and to this day the Republican party is in great distress because the old guard is being thrown out bit by bit by the continuing Tea Party movement that STARTED as small street rallies across the country.


You think street protests don't work probably because you are always on the wrong side of the fight...just a thought.

@fasces - didn't see tuat, and didnt lok at the link. I wanted bon fires in all the major cities and a perverted press having mutipe orgasms watching thier fantasies come true.

Actually, I trust even the fucktards here uderstand I never wanted protests over Zimmerman, and Imhave been mocking the douchebags thathave called for and/or hoed for such, INCLUDING the mostly-black community "Leaders" that are the ones constantly callingn racial violence whenever theybthink they see racism.

(sorry for the horrible spelling, etc - hate this f'ing tablet keyboard)

Tampons, Bottles of Urine and Feces...these are the things LIBERAL protesters bring to a rally:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362499/Texas-senate-votes-pass-measure-toughen-abortion-laws.html

On the flip side, when a Tea Party rally is over, the respectful, conservative protestors are generally reported to not only have not brought shit (literally) to a public protest, but generally left the place as clean or cleaner than when they arrives.

Find under - anatomy of a good public protest, versus another-group-of-loud-mouthed-liberals-with-a-minority-politcal-viewpoint-trying-to-make-their-movement-seem-larger-than-it-is-in-the-willing-lapdog-press.