Posted on 07/01/2013 10:01:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Anyone who isn’t living under a rock knows that this past week, coverage of the George Zimmerman trial flooded almost every news outlet. Almost every outlet had analysts and commentators who freely offered their opinions on the case; don’t worry, you won’t be reading another one today—at least not on the guilty-versus-innocent debate.
I want to talk about a common phrase/idea I keep hearing black people say, “Nobody cares about the everyday black-on-black crime though.”2013-TRAYVON-MARTIN
It fluctuates from person-to-person as well. I’ve heard everything from “but there are plenty of Trayvon Martins who have been killed and no one has said anything” to “black people only want to get upset when a non-black person does the killing.”
Get ready for a bit of opinion now (I warned you):
Using the inaccurate and generalizing theory that black people only get up in arms when a crime is committed to one of our own by a non-black person is ludicrous. It’s completely untrue. Unless you live in every single neighborhood (or have family and friends in EVERY SINGLE neighborhood) in the nation and can physically, first-hand account for what blacks do when one of their own is murdered (no matter the aggressor)—what actions they take ASIDE from what a newspaper or media outlet may or may not choose to highlight—you cannot make the claim that blacks only get riled up when it’s non-black on black crime.
Do not let a few cases that have garnered national attention fool you; the media will sensationalize and/or make anything it wants to relevant. So, just because you don’t read about blacks standing up or speaking out, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And just because you don’t see protests or blacks advocating for change in their neighborhoods on the major news outlets, doesn’t mean they aren’t.
Yes, there are plenty of Trayvon Martins that didn’t make worldwide headlines. There were also plenty of men and women who refused to give up their seats on buses way before Rosa Parks came along, but she was the one that catapulted the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which ultimately led to bus desegregation. Do you think Medgar Evers was the first black man to be assassinated? Or Emmet Till was the first black teen to be brutally murdered? No. Many people who made a difference in our nation’s history (especially pertaining to blacks) were not the first to either do what they did or the first to have that particular incident happen to them, but they were the ones whose stories garnered enough attention to actually make a difference.
And no matter how people choose to view it, these people were necessary. If some attention wasn’t finally brought to those refusing to give up their seats to whites and taking a stand against segregation, we may still have been on the back of the bus. There were and are plenty of black boys that could replace Trayvon Martin in the news, but his story was the one to garner the mass amount of attention. Now, like Rosa, Medgar, Emmett and others, a major issue in society is finally being brought to our nation’s attention. It doesn’t matter WHO the change occurred through, it just matters that it does occur.
Now that Trayvon Martin’s case has gained national attention and stirred up the necessary discussions of race, prejudice, and racial profiling in the country, hopefully the outcome will bring more awareness to the many other victims like him so we can work to prevent this from reoccurring.
Another quick thing I want to highlight about the importance of this case is the one thing many try to say it’s not about—race. The main reason this case garnered so much attention was because of
1) the stand your ground law and
2) the way the Sanford Police Dept. “handled” the shooting. The police chief got on national television and said they wouldn’t be charging George Zimmerman because, as in the law, he shot Martin in self-defense and did not commit a crime. The police department failed to conduct an investigation; the officers said they had no reason to believe otherwise about Zimmerman’s story.
Having a law that allows anyone to kill another person in self-defense causes problems within itself (and is more of a political issue), but the point is how the law was carried out.
The Tampa Bay Times conducted a study in June 2012 on the effects of Florida’s “Stand your Ground Law,” and you know what it found? The defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the people who killed a black person didn’t face any penalties compared to 59 percent of the people who killed a white person.
In 159 cases where the law was used as reasoning, the victim was not armed compared to 62 cases where the victim was armed. The victim was not committing a crime in 179 cases compared to 49 cases where he or she was. Also, in 128 cases, the defendant could have retreated to avoid the conflict and killing the person, as opposed to 34 cases where he or she couldn’t.
The Sanford Police Dept. failed to do its job objectively and conduct a full investigation, because if you believe if the story was reversed—George Zimmerman was a grown black man who had shot and killed a white teen—that department would have without-a-doubt believed his self defense claim, no questions asked and he—the Black shooter—would be home free just hours later after killing a white teen…you’re fooling yourself.
I’m not making claims on Zimmerman’s intentions or biases, but most assuredly believe that race was a factor in the way the police department failed to do its job.
My ‘opinion segment’ is up; feel free to have your own in the comments section.
Sources;
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/ and
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
Shala Marks
“If no crime is committed, he must be acquitted”
The defense elected not to use the ‘stand your ground’ defense.
Primarily this is a political trial that wouldn’t have occurred but for the enormous media attention the incident garnered.
It was played as ‘white vs. black’ despite Zimmerman’s Hispanic and other ethnic roots to motivate blacks for a cause in an important election year.
The family’s attorney also used it to generate ‘heat’ to earn a quick million dollar settlement from the homeowner’s association insurance company.
Zimmerman’s ‘story’ was that there were previous robberies so he and others began a watch program. The main argument was over who began the confrontation and threw the first punch. If Zimmerman is correct and TM struck him first and then was attempting to bash his head in the ground or suffocate him, he had the right to defend himself even if it caused TM great bodily harm or death.
This was a suspicious wannabe cop wannabe badass (actually a short and fat whimp) vs. a wannabe gansta wannabe badass (actually a scrawny 17 year old kid with family issues).
Was it avoidable? Had Zimmerman said, “No problem, man, I’m the neighborhood watch here and the police are on the way” would it have been avoided? Had he stayed in his vehicle and just waited for the cops before then? Had Martin just run home quickly to his dad’s and avoided the altercation? Had he said, “You the police or something?” instead of “Do you have a problem?”
Was really a series of misunderstandings and mistakes on the part of both of them that day and now it’s all being seen through a ‘race prism’ with 99% of blacks saying, “White racist killed young black boy = guilty!” and Hispanics and whites saying, “What does the evidence show? So far it’s looking like self defense = not guilty, but a tragedy nonetheless.”
Blacks will interpret it based on the race baiters initial take on the death and riot.
Blacks will likely kill other blacks during the rioting and that’ll receive... how much national attention? Far less than this.
getting home, then going back out to beat on someone, is committing a crime. it also means you willingly engaged the person and that you were /became the instigator.
there is no wayto slice thisthat trayvon isnt guilty and zimmerman acted in self defense. both could have made different choices beforehand. trayvon made the criminal choices of assault when he did not have to - ie not self-defense, ie coming back after he had retreated- and attacked zimmerman, and zimmerman defended himself.
Race Card,
Race Card,
Race Card, Race Card,
and finally, Race Card! So there!
Actually, Trayvon wasn’t scrawny, unless you are looking at the pic of him at age 13, and George Zimmerman has put on a lot of his weight since he want to jail
By far the people I heard the n-word most from are blacks.
Uhhh, shala, honey? George Zimmerman is iess white than obama. Put THAT in your poison pen and write it.
The Negro people are allowed to say the N word. It’s only unforgivably racist if said by other than the Negro people.
There’s so many flaws in this piece, it would be easy to pick apart, but what is the point? People here can already see them, and the author will never grasp them.
Well, the media has decided that Zimmerman is a white Hispanic. It doesn’t matter if he’s really less white than Obama. The media declared that Obama is black, thus he is our historic first black president. The media declared Zimmerman to be a white Hispanic, who killed a black boy. They did this to fit into their narrative that a racist white man killed an innocent black boy due to racism.
Fact don’t matter. The only thing that matters is advancing the liberal narrative about a story.
Zimmerman is even part Black as well as being part White & Hispanic yet he is still referred to as a White person.
The defense can still go for SYG immunity during or after the trial. If they went for SGY before the trial, Zimmerman would have had to answer all of the judge’s questions, and put all of their cards on the table to be used by the prosecution.
She’s got her MEchelle Obama look goin’ on. She needs to move the belt a tad higher and the sweater needs to be a 3T.
Pardon me for interrupting Ms. Marks, but as long as you're invoking the name of Rosa Parks in your "Who says nobody cares about black-on-black violent crime?" screed, can you name the man who violently robbed elderly Rosa Parks in her own home, when it happened, where it happened, what the circumstances were, or what sentence he got?
Yeah, I thought not. That story got swept under the rug REAL fast when it happened. If her assailant was a white man, you'd still be frothing at the mouth over it, wouldn't you? Oh-ho-ho, Yes. Yes, you would.
So shut up.
...’Had he stayed in his vehicle and just waited for the cops before then?’...Ah yes, the Safari Principal. Don’t leave the vehicle whilst the wild animals are about. Mr. Zimmerman’s ‘mistake’ was encountering a thug with the fortitude to actually utilize intimate, offensive action, meant to cause GBI including possible death. Mr. Martin didn’t pull it off because he wasn’t as good as he thought he was and was STUPID for attempting such a move on an armed person. As in the ‘jungle’ sometimes the predator gets ‘gored’. As for black-on-black crime, why is it that over 90% of young blacks that are murdered are murdered by other blacks? Where is the NATIONAL black outrage? Could it be that the black community is depending on the government to take care of this problem, like the government has ‘successfully’ taken care of other black community problems? Hint; the government will give you a few ‘entitlements’, allow to ‘abort’ your future, give you a crappy education, and ‘permit’ you to stay on the plantation if your ‘loyalty’ is correct. Otherwise you’re on your own——good luck, God-speed.
Is that racist?
I'm sure some willl think so though it's not.
She constructs a straw man and ineffectually hacks away at him only to leave him standing at the end of her sermon.
That story got swept under the rug REAL fast when it happened. If her assailant was a white man, you’d still be frothing at the mouth over it, wouldn’t you?
****************
Ouch. You’re knockout king.
"... if you believe if the story was reversed—George Zimmerman was a grown black man who had shot and killed a white teen—that department would have without-a-doubt believed his self defense claim, no questions asked and he—the Black shooter—would be home free just hours later after killing a white teen…you’re fooling yourself."
Does the name John White ring a bell? No? With this hyperlink, allow me to refresh your memory about the black man who killed an unarmed white teenager and had his sentence commuted by the black governor of New York to the applause of the NAACP who said in the link above that John White "did what any father would do in defending himself and his family", unquote.
I defended John White's actions here on Freerepublic back when it happened in every thread that came up about the case.
Tonights Michael Savage broadcast focued on the “big man” Zimmerman taking advantage of the smaller Trevon ingnoring the fact that Zimmerman since that episode has put on 120 pounds since then. Turned him off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.