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
I have warned my negro friends not to use the “n” word. I have explained to them that by using the “n” work, they give former ku klux klan leader David Duke and argument that he can use it, too. A David Duke can say that why should people complain if he uses the “n” word when black people say it all of the time.
George Zimmerman was under a great deal of stress and he put on over 100lbs in the course of a year because of it. Food can be very soothing.
The entire black community including those big mouths in the churches, the media and politics have only a few days lift to get on the right side of this before they are embarrassed back to the ghetto of irrelevance.
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.
Idiot.... there was an investigation, if she had watched the trial on TV she would have seen the results of it.
What she is, is another race-baiter. maybe more polished and low-key about it but in the end she is one.
Pray for this country folks, that slippery slope thing? Well now, I would say that we’re over the edge and building up speed. It’s not just things like the Zimmerman trial, it’s a whole bunch of things that are all designed to trigger negative emotions in the various segments of the populace and they are ALL occurring at the same time.
Planned or happenstance, it’s there anyone who cares to open their eyes can see it.
Alas Babylon!
The Travon Martin case is VERY similar to the Rosa Parks case.
That is, if Rosa had begun by walking up to a seat in the front of a bus occupied by a white person and said, “Get out my seat, cracker.”
Of all the race-based commentary on this case, the claim that had the races been reversed, a black shooter would more likely have been arrested even if his story were the same as Zimmerman’s. At the VERY least, his self-defense claim would have been MUCH more closely scrutinized.
On the other hand, the black community would not be insisting that the shooter was guilty because he followed the deceased.
Isn’t she just the cutest thing.
This has nothing to do with stand your ground. Nothing.
Pretty girl but not too deep a thinker...
...she’s okay, but I don’t find her that pretty...just wish these black writers would drop the annoying habit of always premising their work from the black perspective, and actually employ a bit more of a nuanced, even distanced approach...
...white writers approach subjects from a variety of angles...blacks, well...
“Stand your ground” is irrelevant to this case. That tells me that Shala Marx is an idiot.
“Stand your ground” is irrelevant to this case because it is NOT being argued with that as the defense. It is being argued as a simple self defense case. Perhaps if you understood that you wouldn’t have me thinking that you might be the idiot.
Show me how “stand your ground” is relevant to this case. If you can do that, I am wrong. I await your argument will great anticipation. Let’s hear it, or your apology.
I do owe you an apology. I was thinking that you were insisting that this was a stand your ground case. I apologize. The woman, the author, is the one who thinks this is a stand your ground case.
No problem. I thought that might have been what happened, and I’m sorry if I came off a little snippy. She is not alone. I run across people online and in real life all the time who think this is a “stand your ground” case. It’s a plain old self defense case. It’s irritating because it shows just how crappy the media is at its job of informing.
“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.”
See my tag.
Liberals such as this lady can only be employed if they write from the "black perspective".
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.