HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Blacks Who Stand Their Gr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:54 AM

Blacks Who Stand Their Ground Often Imprisoned

The recent acquittal of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old unarmed Trayvon Martin has led to intense scrutiny of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, which hung over the Zimmerman trial along with similar “no retreat” self-defense laws, and their impact on people of color.

“I think the Trayvon Martin case highlighted the racial inequalities that exist in American society,” said Brendan Fischer, general counsel of the Center for Media and Democracy. “It is a symbol of how the American justice system devalues the lives of people of color. , ‘Stand Your Ground’ has embedded a lot of these injustices into the system. Statistics have shown its application has been anything but equitable.”

Supported by the National Rifle Association, “Stand Your Ground” was passed by the Florida legislature in 2005. The measure turned age-old self-defense principle on its head by allowing persons to use deadly force to defend themselves, without first trying to retreat, if they have a reasonable belief that they face a threat.

The law’s template was then adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit organization made up of corporations, foundations and legislators that advance federalist and conservative public policies, authorities said. Since Florida passed the law, similar measures have been introduced in one form or another in about 30 states, usually those with state legislatures dominated by Republicans.


http://newamericamedia.org/2013/07/blacks-who-stand-their-ground-often-imprisoned.php

82 replies, 4244 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Blacks Who Stand Their Ground Often Imprisoned (Original post)
MrScorpio Jul 2013 OP
dkf Jul 2013 #1
CakeGrrl Jul 2013 #2
dkf Jul 2013 #5
Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #7
bluestate10 Jul 2013 #15
JRLeft Jul 2013 #36
Flatulo Jul 2013 #65
dkf Jul 2013 #26
Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #28
dkf Jul 2013 #30
Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #37
yardwork Jul 2013 #64
heaven05 Jul 2013 #46
Major Nikon Jul 2013 #12
kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #54
Hoyt Jul 2013 #3
etherealtruth Jul 2013 #19
dkf Jul 2013 #27
Mass Jul 2013 #31
dkf Jul 2013 #32
CatWoman Jul 2013 #40
heaven05 Jul 2013 #47
billh58 Jul 2013 #50
kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #55
dkf Jul 2013 #59
Mass Jul 2013 #60
metalbot Jul 2013 #58
heaven05 Jul 2013 #82
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #4
HipChick Jul 2013 #6
dkf Jul 2013 #17
dkf Jul 2013 #13
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #16
dkf Jul 2013 #21
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #34
dkf Jul 2013 #35
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #38
dkf Jul 2013 #39
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #42
dkf Jul 2013 #51
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #57
dkf Jul 2013 #63
heaven05 Jul 2013 #70
heaven05 Jul 2013 #48
bluestate10 Jul 2013 #10
dkf Jul 2013 #14
bluestate10 Jul 2013 #20
dkf Jul 2013 #22
ET Awful Jul 2013 #52
Flatulo Jul 2013 #69
heaven05 Jul 2013 #49
independentpiney Jul 2013 #25
CatWoman Jul 2013 #41
kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #56
Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #61
azurnoir Jul 2013 #66
independentpiney Jul 2013 #68
heaven05 Jul 2013 #43
cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #8
bluestate10 Jul 2013 #24
leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #9
limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #11
HipChick Jul 2013 #18
gollygee Jul 2013 #23
billh58 Jul 2013 #67
TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #29
B Stieg Jul 2013 #33
heaven05 Jul 2013 #45
B Stieg Jul 2013 #71
heaven05 Jul 2013 #44
Peaceplace80 Jul 2013 #53
calimary Jul 2013 #62
Flatulo Jul 2013 #72
calimary Jul 2013 #75
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I
heaven05 Jul 2013 #81
jimboss Jul 2013 #76
calimary Jul 2013 #80
Flatulo Jul 2013 #73
BainsBane Jul 2013 #74
Name removed Jul 2013 #77
MrScorpio Jul 2013 #78
Name removed Jul 2013 #79

Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:00 PM

1. It is probably true that Blacks aren't successful with SYG.

 

But that points to unfairness to blacks, not that Zimmerman should have had an unfair verdict against him to rectify things.

It is not right to hold Zimmerman's case as the one where people get to make up for all the other problems that are not of his making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:04 PM

2. Trayvon Martin shouldn't have had an unfair verdict against HIM.

He was 'convicted' when Zimmerman profiled him.

Zimmerman took full advantage of SYG and a corrupt local system helped him walk.

So if this case is the one that shines a light on the evil precedent that's being set? Fine by me. To hell with being "unfair" to Zimmerman. He's walking free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:17 PM

5. You don't know what the outcome would have been had it continued.

 

No one does. A person has a right to protect themselves from being killed or being seriously injured. That is what the law says. Do you believe a person has that right to protect their life with a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:20 PM

7. Apparently, in your world, only armed people should be allowed to defend themselves...

Did Martin have a right to protect himself from an armed assailant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:45 PM

15. That is wat I drew from the post. The question that looms and remain unanswered by the

right and the right-leaning is, When did Trayvon Martin have a right to self-defense?

dfk, answer the following questions, if you have the guts or moral clarity:

- If a stranger is persistently following you and you tried running from that person. What would you do? Would you run home and possibly expose your family to that person? Or would you confront that person to somehow end the threat?
- It is a fair guess that you aren't Black and/or can't see the problem that a Black person would have when being followed. So, how would you feel as a parent if a stranger followed you son or male relative and killed that son or relative when the son or relative attempted to stop that person from following?
-You have to have the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of someone that you aren't. You can set back smugly and assume that injustice won't happen to you or people you love. Look down the road when Whites are fundamentally a minority and are subject to the majority passing laws. How would you feel about a law the potentially or actually victimized White people, simply because they were White, or if a jury decided, that jury couldn't see any of the issue from the standpoint of a White person?

Meaningful change doesn't come when people remain crouched in a defensive posture. Whites must change the views on minorities in general. But, minorities need to change many of their views on Whites. Both groups have cultures that are admirable, both groups have behaviors that are destructive and anti-social.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:26 PM

36. According to some here black people have no right to protect ourselves from harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:42 PM

65. Being followed, in and of itself, does not constitute a grave threat

of death or great bodily harm.

You can't know what the intentions are of someone who is following you, so you can't argue that there was a threat. For all you know the pursuer may have been trying to return your wallet. Or maybe they though you had a cute ass.

Not defending Zimmerman, because he put this chain of events into motion. But Martin would not have been justified in using deadly force to stop someone from following. No one would be justified.

But that's the problem with these SYG statutes... most people, armed or otherwise, don't understand what the rights and restrictions are. When you get down to the quantum level of events, you get into logical infinite loops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:03 PM

26. He did. If he had grabbed the gun and shot Zimmerman...

 

He would be the one defending his life and the one acquitted by me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:06 PM

28. So basically who wins is innocent? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:11 PM

30. In a fight over life or death, and by law, yes.

 

The messed up thing is that both probably had some incorrect prejudgment on why the other was a menace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:27 PM

37. Where was the life or death struggle here, Zimmerman got a bloody nose and scratches...

on the back of the head. Not exactly injuries sustained in a fight for your life situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:41 PM

64. Medieval. Might makes right.

The best armed one wins. One thousand years of civilization down the drain. I don't want to live in a Mad Max world. That's why we have laws.

There is s strong strain of romantic libertarianism running through the proZimmerma point if view. It's a world view that requires everybody to be armed and ready to kill at z moment's notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:53 PM

46. if!

if! if! if!. You weren't there, you DO NOT know if that was the scenario. geez But never mind, your hero is slithering through the grass, free. So, as far as Trayvon Martin is concerned you would have backed his SYG stand under your scenario? Bullshit!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:32 PM

12. Hogwash

The law always said you have the right to protect yourself and still does in the states that don't have 'shoot first' laws. All "the law" did was remove the duty to retreat which was sound legal principle dating back many years before the NRA and ALEC came up with a fix for a nonexistent problem to pander to the gun proliferates who have wet dreams about the day when they can gun down people of color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:21 PM

54. Trayvon had the right to use deadly force to protect HIMSELF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:11 PM

3. Sorry, Zman caused this, the right wing legislature's gun laws allowed it, a bigoted jury


sanctioned it, and now callous gun lovers applaud Zman like he was some kind of victim for being a bigot with a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

19. Exactly

All three acted in concert ... with the outcome being exactly as "they" had wished

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:05 PM

27. That is ridiculous. All states have a right to self defense in their laws.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:14 PM

31. Yes, but they do not have the right to kill if there are other solutions.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)


While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury; however, a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat, when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:17 PM

32. What other solution was there?

 

There was nothing, just lie there and subject yourself to further injury, possible serious bodily harm and maybe even death. If a person can fight back are they screaming for 40 seconds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:42 PM

40. you completely disgust me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:56 PM

47. my

feeling exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:02 PM

50. +100

Zimmerman apologists who do so with NRA propaganda and Gungeon right-wing/Libertarian opinions about the righteousness of SYG and public carry laws are beyond disgusting. They exemplify all that is keeping the USA from joining the rest of the civilized world in reducing the violence caused by lethal weaponry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:23 PM

55. Bingo. That person disgusts most of DU most of the time.

Where is MIRT when you need them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:31 PM

59. If you need to attack me personally, I guess that means you can't refute the assertion.

 

So be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:32 PM

60. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:29 PM

58. Here's the problem

In states where you have a "duty to retreat", you only have that duty if you can do so with complete safety. And the duty to retreat is at the time of the threat to your life, not at some point before your life is threatened.

In both the prosecution and the defense's scenarios, Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time that he was shot. I don't think that Zimmerman would have been convicted in any state (other than perhaps Ohio, which is the only state in which the burden of proving self defense is on the defendant), at least based on the evidence presented at trial.

More at issue here is not the duty to retreat, but potentially provocation.

More on duty to retreat:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

/http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/possible-change-to-florida-law-following-the-zimmerman-verdict

More on provocation:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/provocation-and-self-defense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:51 PM

82. yeah

right, the skittles were still in his hand in death, package unopened, which if he was 'pounding' zimPIGS face and head, that package would have been open with skittles all over the place. Small observation with large implication. There's your logical objectivity. You zimPIG apologists just never can understand that your underlying motives are seen and known for what they are.....??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:16 PM

4. Under the exact same conditions, except that Z was Black and Martin was White/Peruvian...

Do you think that the verdict would have also been the same?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:18 PM

6. No...this discussion would not be even taking place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HipChick (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:47 PM

17. And why isn't THAT the inequity.

 

Maybe it's the right to defend yourself that blacks aren't being afforded in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:43 PM

13. I would have made the same judgment given the evidence as presented.

 

So at a minimum the jury would be hung.

Of course I cannot speak for everyone else. I would hope people could look at evidence and be analytical in its execution but looking at how this is playing out I fear not.

I wonder if the question is if the players ie, cops, witnesses, etc, would have given the same testimony. Now THAT may be the more insidious effect of racism.

I can't pretend that isn't possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:47 PM

16. Exclude yourself from the jury... You weren't there in the first place

With the jury as it was, do you think that they'd render the same verdict?

Would a black shooter get the same "fair" shake as someone who's white?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:56 PM

21. Do I know how racist people in Florida are?

 

Quite possibly they are and they would convict. But that is where they would be wrong.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:21 PM

34. Well, isn't that a tacit admission that Zimmerman's verdict was the result of a racist perspective?

It most certainly can't be justified as either fair or appropriate as it was, now would it?

From your own perspective it's abundantly clear that people who defend the verdict, for whatever reason that they're giving, they're simply justifying racist way that the law is being applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:23 PM

35. No. The way they apply it towards blacks is racist.

 

The way they applied it in the Zimmerman case is correct.

You don't think the problem with the justice system is the OVERPROSECUTION and EXCESS INCARCERATION of blacks?

Now you want that standard applied to Zimmerman. That's messed up.

I will go further: white juries use their fears and prejudices and emotions to incarcerate blacks regardless of what the law truly states and demands as evidence. Now the black community and others who sympathize want to extend using emotion to convict Zimmerman regardless of the law and the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:29 PM

38. Look, you can't have it both ways

The verdict would have been fair, if a Black Zimmerman would have been acquitted of killing a White Martin, by this same jury.

But you yourself have admitted that the jury itself, and their verdict by extension, was tainted by a racist perspective that would not be the same if the tables were turned.

So why should anyone defend what was a racist and unfair verdict?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:34 PM

39. The Zimmerman verdict was the correct one.

 

The one possibly applied to the black defendant would be the unfair and incorrect one.

Is that not the argument the AA community has been making all along? That the law is not being applied properly when it comes to black defendants?

Listen to yourself...you are justifying the incarceration of blacks and saying whites should be held to the same standard (we need no evidence) and incarcerated more often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:43 PM

42. I'm saying that a Manslaughter conviction would have been appropriate regardless of the shooter

Whether they be White, Black, Purple or whatever...

I'm saying that Zimmerman got off because the jurors couldn't empathize with the Black victim more than they empathized with Zimmerman, the person who stalked, shot and killed an innocent victim. Juror B37 said as much.

You know that the system is racist, yet you insist on defending the result of that racism.

The system is patently racist and unfair, as was that verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:05 PM

51. No. What does empathy with Trayvon have to do with the...

 

Assessment in whether Zimmerman was in fear of his life which is what self defense comes down to.

The task of the jury was to find if there was evidence that Zimmerman was not using self defense, that he was in fact not in fear of his life or of serious bodily injury.

What does empathy or lack or empathy with Trayvon have to do with that judgment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #51)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:27 PM

57. If you don't understand how any of this matters...

Even how problematic SYG, the racist laws (that you do know that they are racist) and the ways that they're being applied, then you've pretty much admitted that you also don't understand why the verdict was wrong.

This would also explain the fact that you don't understand WHY NONE of you arguments defending the verdict are convincing.

But you don't care about any of that, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #57)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:38 PM

63. Honestly you make no sense to me whatsoever.

 

I think you wanted jury nullification...for empathy to overrule the law.

You think that all the injustices done to blacks mean the letter of the law needs to be overlooked for Zimmerman.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:43 PM

70. catwoman

is right!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:57 PM

48. ???

quite possibly. geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:25 PM

10. You distort the OP's message. The message was that the law that allowed Zimmerman to

basically murder a person and get away with it need to be changed. That would be true regardless of whether the killer is White, Black, Hispanic or any other race. Zimmerman made no attempt to retreat from confrontation. The historical underpinning of a self-defense claim is that the person making the claim tried to avoid danger but could not. Zimmerman went after Martin, he could have stayed in his truck and called the cops, even if Martin was rocking his truck - ONLY in the instance of Martin entering the truck, or taking a lethal weapon out near the truck should Zimmerman have had a legitimate claim to self-defense. Stand Your Ground is an abomination, all such laws must be either changed to better define what justifies self-defense, or repealed outright, with the law reverting back to the historical notion of self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:45 PM

14. There wasn't anything illegal in what was done prior to the confrontation.

 

Therefore he had a right to self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:53 PM

20. Again, you are mixed up.

Martin had a strange person following who wouldn't stop following. What was he supposed to do and when did the right of self-defense become Martin's. Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal according to a foolish law. The law must be changed. As the law stands, a person with a gun can pursue and kill an unarmed person and walk free, the only thing between that person walking free being a jury that may be full of it's own biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:58 PM

22. No. You can't beat up someone for following you.

 

Defending your life is not wrong and should not be prosecuted. I believe in the right to self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:13 PM

52. Actually, under "Stand Your Ground', you CAN beat up someone for following you, if you

believe that they are presenting an imminent threat. In fact, you can use deadly force. That's part of the problem with SYG.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ET Awful (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:42 PM

69. It doesn't matter what YOU believe, it's what a 'reasonable person' would have believed.

A 'reasonable person' would not beat up or shoot a person for following him/her. He or she might ask the person if and why they are following, or they might call the police, but they would not beat up the follower.

This is what the jury found.

Now, IMO, Zimmerman should NOT have been following Martin, but the jury was instructed to only consider the events after the scuffle began. That, I believe, is where justice miscarried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:00 PM

49. he

had a right to profile young martin and stalk and pursue him and finally murder him? You really are something!!! I sure hope you're not carrying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:02 PM

25. In the 10 years I've been here

I don't recall you expressing a liberal or progressive opinion on a single issue. I just find that really interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to independentpiney (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:43 PM

41. interesting AND disgusting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to independentpiney (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:26 PM

56. You are correct. That person has NEVER taken the liberal view of a single

thing that I have ever seen. EVER.

MIRT has really failed on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:36 PM

61. It ain't MIRT. Apparently the admins think it's all fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #56)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:43 PM

66. Truthfully

at 10 years membership and almost 35,000 posts MIRT can not do anything, only admins can

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:08 PM

68. I have to wonder if there's some large donations behind that star of theirs

I venture a review of those almost 35000 posts wouldn't find a single one expressing or supporting a liberal viewpoint. They make third way look far left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:44 PM

43. maybe

zimPIG is part of the problem! zimPIG is not being treated unfairly, a jury of his 'peers' made sure of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:24 PM

8. Blacks who don't SYG also often imprisoned. Blacks who *anything* often imprisoned.

Of course the implementation of SYG law is racially disparate. When the overall system of criminal law is racially disparate we will find that disparity in every aspect of it.

There is nothing intrinsically racist in SYG, any more than there is anything intrinsically racist about pot being illegal.

But as expressed by society in practice, the outcomes are disparate.

In practice, pot being illegal accomplishes more racial inequality than a stack of SYG laws ever could.

As t what is the most racist law in practical effect... heck, it may be some obscure element of mortgage law. Maybe even parking regulations.

Black persons, in aggregate, come out on the short end of all laws because the people (prosecutors, jurors, judges, lawyers, police, and even journalists in practical effect) who shape the specific implementation of those laws make up a society with racial and socio-economic biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:01 PM

24. There is an economic component.

A well spoken Black male of means that followed and killed a poor White teen and used SYG would have a better chance of walking free that a hip-hop dressed, poor Black male. This is the crime of SYG laws, they strip justice from the legal system and give free passes to people that are smart enough to exploit such laws or can hire lawyers that are smart enough to distort evidence and jury biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:24 PM

9. 30% to 3%

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:29 PM

11. the entire criminal justice system is deeply racist

From patrolling the streets, to stopping people, arresting people, the verdicts, the sentencing, the imprisonment, and life after prison...everything about it is deeply racist.

The way these SYG laws are being applied is another sick example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:49 PM

18. Exactly...anyone who is in denial of that

is living in la-la land..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:00 PM

23. +1

There's a book called The New Jim Crow that goes into this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:59 PM

67. The Florida

criminal justice system is arguably one of the most racist in the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:10 PM

29. The root is the system is racist and black folks are more likely to be under the hammer in any

scenario, there is nothing in the law per se that is racist, it is the application from how the cops deal with the situation to who prosecutors will go after and how, to how judges handle cases all the way to the probability that juries will be more heavily composed of white folks who may not be overtly racist but identify both with other white folks more but are more likely to put too much faith in the system and police and are more inclined to believe black folks are criminals if charged but need a little more than faith to convict one of their own.

300-400 percent more likely to be convicted is sadly probably a decent spread in this country.

Add in the increased probability that a black person is more likely to be poor and therefore fucked in our adversarial and money driven system and those sobering and troubling numbers come out to the same of better than usual.

One of our biggest problems is people want to talk about symptoms and individuals over systems and by doing so every dialog is little more than a distraction that aids the existing power structures. It is always about the apples and never about the barrels they are in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:21 PM

33. In May Florida (surprise!) Marissa Alexander got 20 years for firing a warning shot into the ceiling

He husband had previously physically abused her, but, despite the fact she didn't even shoot the jerk when he attacked her again, the court rejected her SYG defense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/


This has got to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Stieg (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:48 PM

45. tell

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

that to the usual suspects on here bemoaning poor zimPIG and how he's misunderstood. I know of that case, yes the whole case usual suspects, and she got a very rotten deal from those klan kourts in florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #45)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:36 PM

71. I hear you. I'm starting to spot DU's "Cracker Trolls" too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:46 PM

44. the

usual suspects showed up bemoaning the poor zimPIG pile on, which it's not. 10-4 on your post. It's the truth in amerikkka.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:20 PM

53. Zimmermans life wasn't being threatened

He had a few scratches and a bloody nose and didn't receive any medical care other than having the blood wiped off. Even if it was Trayvon that caused these scratches there was no way Zimmerman was going to die from them. He was quite aware of the shoot first laws and acted on them and it worked in his pathetic favor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceplace80 (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 02:36 PM

62. See, this is where I get really confused.

Every argument I hear from any corner - whether it's here or from commentators or people talking about it in line at the checkout counter. When they start in with the apologist's assertion that the verdict was correct based on the evidence...

EVIDENCE??? WHAT evidence supported what Zimbo did? WHAT EVIDENCE???????????? From what I saw, from what I've read, from what I've seen of the trial and all the spinners on either side - I. Do. NOT. See. ANY. Evidence. To. Justify. Or. Excuse. What. Zimmerman. Did. I just DO NOT.

On the contrary. The evidence I have seen has pointed me directly to 2nd Degree Murder. If not higher. I find compelling evidence for FIRST Degree Murder, because in even just that short amount of time between when Zimbo spotted Trayvon Martin and the time he shot Trayvon Martin, that looks to me like he reached premeditation to kill. He had enough time to make up his mind IN ADVANCE that Trayvon was a nogoodnik. Before they ever scuffled. Before he ever confronted Trayvon and started picking a fight with him.

I've paid pretty close attention to this. There is NO evidence I have seen that excuses or justifies what Zimbo did. NONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:52 PM

72. The problem with SYG laws...

Two guys get into a fight over a parking space. Both are armed. Each is getting in some good punches, and each is getting concerned that he might lose the fight and get his ass kicked.

Whoever draws first and kills the other can righteously claim self defense. It comes down to a quick-draw contest.

The SYG laws as written are stupid. I have no problems with people legitimately defending themselves from getting beaten to death by a gang, but it has to be made more clear that you have an obligation to DE-escalate if humanly possible. Swallow your fucking pride and walk away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #72)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 07:34 PM

75. "Swallow your fucking pride and walk away." If only.

There's the problem. THIS ^^^^^^^ !!!

Any wonder why so many of us (probably vast majority female) here on DU and elsewhere immediately go to the gun-as-penis analogy. Can't help it. It just seems incredibly and glaringly obvious to me. Overcompensation. And in Zimbo's case, when you have a soft, flabby, reckless, cowardly weasel who claims it's he himself who's screaming like a little girl when claiming he was in fear of his life, clings to that frickin' gun, has a record (unfortunately not presented in court) of using brute force and/or brute strength to "settle" disputes or assert dominance, and plays pretend-cop when he's found unacceptable as real police material... Can't overpower an opponent with the MMA coaching on which he's spent HOURS, what was it - three days a week? What's he doing in all that time, drawing pictures of it? And he can't overpower an opponent and hold him there while waiting for police - he has to settle it once and for all, with a totally arbitrary excuse, banking on "it's his word against mine, and dead men tell no tales"?

I mean, think about it. Where else could you go to try to explain that, than directly to pathological, anti-social, and in this case CRIMINAL overcompensation?

Mind you, I AM NO SHRINK!

Even so, I think this guy is such a psychological MESS that IMO he can very much indeed be expected to strike again. He won't be able to stop himself, because he can't help it. It's just part of the genuinely damaged being he presently is. I don't know if he got that way specifically by external treatment or factors not in his control when he was younger, or whether that's just what's been in him from the beginning. But I think he's gonna get himself in trouble again. Just like O.J. did. O.J. beat the rap, too, but he's still gonna stay in prison to the end of his days. Because he proved to be the kind of individual who either can't, or won't, stay out of trouble. Either within himself or because he's always drawn to troublesome people or conditions. And, same as with O.J., at least before his last misadventure in Las Vegas not too many years back, I suspect Zimbo has a sense of renewed and enhanced entitlement. A jury just said what he did was okay. Not a problem at all. We'll buy the "self-defense" thing. Free to go, son. Nothing more to see here. Everyone move along now. Seems to me that also enhances his chances of being involved in another calamity. He's now been shown that he can do something like that and get a pass. I can imagine feeling pretty damn cocky after coming out on top of that one. And that can make you get sloppy - and fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #75)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:59 AM

81. I

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

in the scenario you presented I hope he does try to repeat his vigilantism and meets the wrong person to fuck with. At the least I want zimPIG looking over his shoulder for the rest of his natural days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 07:55 PM

76. My personal take on it is what would have been legal for a policeman

 

EXACT same situation during those seconds.

Can a policeman shoot someone in the exact position Zimmerman was in?

I don't know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimboss (Reply #76)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 02:12 AM

80. Welcome to DU, jimboss.

Glad you're here. This whole thing just leaves me completely heartsick.

The problem with the scenario is that I don't think a police officer would have approached Trayvon Martin aggressively. At least one would hope. And Trayvon would probably have been able to recognize the officer as a police officer. What could he have surmised about Zimbo? In the dark, I wonder how I myself would react - if I saw some unidentifiable nutcase stalking me in the darkness, first in his car and then on foot? Zimbo wasn't dressed as a legitimate officer, with the cap, the uniform, the badge that might have reflected light from one of the windows or street lights or landscaping lighting. And the pursuer might have announced him/herself - "Police! Stop right there!" or some such thing. This night stalker-murderer was hellbent on playing Dirty Harry or Rambo, with a built-in premeditated prejudice against his own personal definition of nogoodniks, and he had NO authority. He was a self-appointed, self-anointed vigilante who was determined to take matters into his own hands. Because "they always get away."

I'd be scared to death if I saw him coming. Under ANY circumstances. And I'm a 60-year-old white woman. Zimbo is a MENACE TO US ALL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceplace80 (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:55 PM

73. What's baffled me about this whole case from the get-go, is that Zimmerman set into

motion the whole series of events that led up to Martin's death.

He saw a lack kid walking through his own neighborhood and decided that this was a big enough problem to, first, call the cops, and second, go after him himself.

How he can escape culpability for this is beyond me, and is a travesty of justice. I don't even care that they scuffled. It just doesn't seem relevant to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 07:27 PM

74. K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #77)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 08:05 PM

78. We have a tradition here on DU of posting links for stories that we refer to in our posts

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #78)

Reply to this thread