Zimmerman found 'not guilty' of Trayvon Martin's murder

[Kveta]

m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

Bloody hell.

How utterly crap for Martin's family and friends :( and how dangerous for race relations in Florida :(

A child should not need to reassure a man following him or her.
I have told my daughter she should never confront a would-be aggressor, rapist, flasher etc in any circumstances - any of my children should run as far and as fast as they can.
If they cannot get home/somewhere safe then they solicit help from the nearest passer-by or public building.
If they have a mobile phone they call the police.

If none of that works and the would-be aggressor catches them up then they make as much noise as possible and if the stranger threatens them physically they do whatever it takes to get free - eyeballs, genitals etc

The best response is flight. The typical response may well be freeze. The emergency response is fight.

In this case it all comes down to who confronted who why and how. Which none of us will ever know as we weren't there. Hence the reasonable doubt.

As I said before third degree felony murder might have got a conviction but the prosecution ballsed up on that one.

As for the question as to why people look to be offended or look for any kind of -ism where it doesn't exist - some people - not most, not many, not all just some -

A) may well have a preconceived idea of others' actions or perceived motives borne from their own personal experience ie if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck mentality.

B) Others may have their own agenda - personal or political - so anything which can be used to implement that will be.

C) Finally some people need to find others to blame for every given situation instead of looking inwards.

So - as an example - a bloke serving me at the supermarket calls me 'love' - I can think he is a chauvinist or I can take it at face value

A) if past experiences with patronising leery fellas leave me cynical then I will see chauvinism. If a sweet old man my grandfather's age said the same endearment my response might be different.

but when the lass at the next counter says the same thing -
B) is she a misogynist too or just being friendly? Should I accept being called 'love' at all?

C) Another example: I do not get a promotion at work - it goes to my equally capable asian colleague. Can I accept they did a better interview than me or do I spout on about positive discrimination and say it's not faiiirrrrr in a whiny Alanis Morrisette stylee?

People are people are people. Some are twats. Many are not.

Thread hijack - cannot remember who asked but you can get these dolls at IKEA my DD wanted all three i hated them all cos they were eight quid each www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?query=doll

We all worry, and rightly, about the Islamic states. The way in which they don't allow women education, the right to vote, the right even to drive. But there is a more insidious enemy. The enemy that is our ally, with whom we share a common language. Have you ever visited the Bible belt in the US? I have. They are all racist and sexist and bonkers. I spent a month in Bentonville. I can only report that the inhabitants are mad. Seriously and dangerously mad. I could buy a hand gun, and a rifle more readily than a glass of wine. I won't even tell you about my time in Atlanta where apartheid is doing pretty well thank you. Women are for breeding and shutting up. Black people are bell hops.

When we in the UK go to the US, we generally go to the West Coast and the East Coast (Florida) and New York. Occasionally we get to New England. And we think how cool it is. Who remembers Cheers and Friends and Sex in the City? Yeah right. Four states outta how many? The US is a worrying place.

I've been to Atlanta. There are plenty of succesful black people there, it's a black majority city. Of course black people are also bell hops and in lower skilled professions as well.

A fantastic social experiment about racial profiling.

I don't think anyone can watch this and argue against what it clearly shows.

You and puzzled both have expressed that Trayvon should have approached Zimmerman and reassured him etc etc

I can't really be bothered with what your motivation might be in repeating something already shown to be inaccurate - see my reply on Tue 16-Jul-13 22:49:09 I expressed neither agreement nor disagreement to the comment, and I'm certainly not going to address it for someone who's repeatedly misrepresented me and decided what my views are on my behalf

When you feel able to express yourself rationally - on the basis of facts and preferably without resorting to obscenities - I'll be happy to discuss this with you further. Until that time, I'm afraid I have nothing further to say to you

Puzzled can I ask what your opinion is on the Zimmerman trial and on the more wider issue of racism in general as I am a little confused as to what your viewpoint is.

In this case it all comes down to who confronted who why and how. Which none of us will ever know as we weren't there. Hence the reasonable doubt

Probably, in my view, one of the most sensible remarks made about the trial ... Jacqueline, I guess that explains my opinion?

The issue of racism is a huge subject, but my personal view is that there can and should be no reason at all to make assumptions about anyone on the basis of their skin colour, nationality or any other race-related indicator. I fully accept that racism exists and believe it should always be challenged; however I also believe that a few choose to see offence where none exists or is meant, and that actually such folk do a massive disservice to the issue in general

Hope that makes sense??

Thank you for clarifying that puzzled.

I think that beyond reasonable doubt it could be proved that Zimmerman was the confronter in this situation.

Not beyond all doubt, because as you say only 2 people know that. One is dead and the other one is the killer.

But I think it is very easy to argue beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Zimmerman stalked a young boy, who then ran away from Zimmerman, yes he did initially run away into a pedestrian area. Zimmerman then left the vehicle he had been pursuing him in and chased after him. Zimmerman was advised that he was not required to do that, but still he was determine to pursue this young boy. A few minutes later the young boy was dead. I think based on that undisputed evidence it is clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor and therefore it is fair to believe beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

This is why I disagree with the verdict and believe Zimmerman is guilty.

On the issue of racism, I agree that unfortunately there are some people who see racism where there is none. This is without doubt harmful to the fight against racism, however, people who allow racism to go on unchallenged cause far more damage than those who cry wolf, and sadly there are far, far more people who just ignore racism because it doesn't effect them directly and this makes me very angry because they may as well just say they agree with it.

And you are right racism is a huge subject and very complex, however, I think the Zimmerman case was pretty damn straight forward. He racially profiled Martin. Racial profiling is a form of racism. Nobody is seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

jacqeuline that link is excellent...that is exactly what has happened in the Trayvon case. Exactly the racism that people are denying exists

Thank you for clarifying that puzzled

You're more than welcome :-)

FWIW I'm largely with you on the rest of your post, and hope you won't mind me saying I really admire your clarity about what's known fact and what's opinion; that's not always been the case on here

For me, it's absolutely vital when challenging genuine racism to remember that every community has its share of dangerous idiots; to suggest that an entire community are at fault for the actions of a few maniacs just breeds more resentment and actually hinders progress by clouding the issue

No one is suggesting that an entire community are at fault for the actions of a few maniacs.

What I think a lot of people struggle to grasp is that they may be racist/buying into racist ideologies without even realising it.

As someone else has said either on this thread or the other one, it is very uncomfortable for some people to accept that they are doing this, or how much their own thinking is influenced by racist ideologies.

What I think a lot of people struggle to grasp is that they may be racist/buying into racist ideologies without even realising it.

Exactly. The most dangerous racism is the subconscious kind.

SpecialAgent - Are you a Psychologist / Paychoanalyst??!

Chrissie what exactly has that got to do with it? Or are you just once again trying to pick an argument with individuals instead of actually engaging in the bigger discussion.

Actually don't bother replying to my post as I'm sure you won't be able to manage it without having a personal dig at me and I really don't want to get dragged into such pettiness.

Because I think it's quite pathetic really that a lot of you are psyco-analysing people, whom you don't know, or in fact know what their beliefs are, merely because they hold different opinions! I don't know how many times I need to state this. The 'pettiness' lies with the posters who cannot accept that others hold alternative views. No, I am not being dismissive or in fact 'laughing' at this tragedy as somebody else said, I was in fact 'laughing' at the pathetic and potty mouther replies from some of you who clearly seem to be letting other posters get to you.

mothed, not mouther ! Bl**dy iPhone

Aaarrrrrrghhhhhh ... !! MOUTHED ! Sorry, typing too quick on this thing!

What I did watch the other night was the Piers Morgan interview w Rachel Jeantel and felt a lot of admiration for her, and I think she proved herself a little more than what she did when in court...However, she was adament that she didn't want any further media part as a mark of respect for her friend Trayvon, and then I see all over Twitter she has now made several further TV appearances and has labelled herself 'famous' - I am genuinely disappointed now, as I'd really warmed to her

As a long-term resident of both the UK and US I know there is a disparity in the two countries about gun rights/ gun use/ gun control.

George Zimmerman is in many ways an example of why citizens should not occupy vigilante positions: he was a man 'on a mission', did not comply to official instruction, and he was unable to handle the situation or his weapon- why not shoot the young man in the foot or some non-fatal injury, as would be expected of a law enforcement officer trying to respond in self-defense?

The truths of the case have now been obscured, but the facts are that a child, by US standards, was killed. A child who legally should have been arrested, questionned and either charged or released. And his assailant has shown no responsibility in the cause of his death- something else which should be expected.

'Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms.'

Guns are a fact of life in the US, but people are not securing or using them responsibly.

"Had he stayed polite and calm and reassured the other person would it would have turned out differently"

This advice seriously scares me. My 13yo was stalked by a man in a car a few weeks ago. He assumed- as one hopes any child would- that this was a would-be mugger or rapist, somebody intent on harming him, and that he had to get away. Fortunately he was able to do this by running up a side street. If not, if he had been cornered, of course he would have tried to fight his way out. Not turned round to reason politely and reassure the man.

If I had posted on MN about this incident, I would be very surprised if a single poster had piped up with "next time you must teach your ds to turn round and reassure the man politely".

I have no doubt that ds was right in his assumptions about this man. They were not assumptions he could afford to ignore under the circumstances. So why should you expect another teen to ignore them and say "Oh I am sure he only needs reassuring", just because his skin happened to be black? Are black teens immune to rape and mugging?

I find it worrying that when it comes to a white child, people's thoughts immediately spring to vulnerability and the threat other people might pose to them. And when it comes to a black child, a good many people immediately think of the threat they might pose, or be perceived as posing, to other people.

In these thirteen pages, there have been endless remarks along the lines that "this was a racist killing," "he was killed because he was black" and much more in the same vein

I imagine most people would agree that racism certainly exists, that it's a pretty emotive subject and that the systems for dealing with it aren't perfect. Many may also agree that Zimmerman seems unsavoury, perhaps shouldn't have been in neighbourhood watch and that he may have been only too pleased to have somebody (anybody!!) to confront

But what I want to ask is this: Can anyone offer any proof that the actual killing was motivated by racism? I appreciate that some may sincerely believe this, and of course they're entitled to their opinion, but what I'm asking about is real evidence - not commentary on society's many undoubted problems, but actual proof that in this particular case, the young lad was killed because of the colour of his skin

I'd honestly be interested to know ...

I find it worrying that when it comes to a white child, people's thoughts immediately spring to vulnerability and the threat other people might pose to them. And when it comes to a black child, a good many people immediately think of the threat they might pose, or be perceived as posing, to other people

^THIS^ from cory

AND

What I think a lot of people struggle to grasp is that they may be racist/buying into racist ideologies without even realising it

^THIS^ from Amberleaf