• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin

TownieDeac said:
But the final point, to me, is the most important, and one in which I was showing a viewpoint sympathetic to the one Ph had been arguing. It's easy to rapidly dismiss this line of argument of hers from a position of hegemonic white privilege. You bring up a good point in saying that it's completely possible to dismantle her arguments regardless of your own status, and I completely agree with you there. But her stance is controversial because it is radical and challenges the currently accepted perception of things from many people, and those so quick to dismiss it, yourself not necessarily included District, easily play into her central thesis. You buy the narrative in some way or another because either it's acceptable to be a vigilante neighborhood watchmen carrying a gun and not following police orders and provoking people on the street, or because you genuinely believe in the inversion of victimhood, that Zimmerman was the one fighting for his life, standing his ground lawfully.
Click to expand...

I think for lots of jaded and practiced OGBoarders (like myself), this becomes a great way to attack the entire analysis as a cop out, reading like "if you disagree, it's because you're a victim of the same indoctrination" or more reductively "questioning me only proves my point."

No offense intended, just struck me as somewhat amusing. As for the analysis itself, what makes it eye-roll-worthy--in my view, at least--is that it's entirely speculative as to GZ's outlook and thought process, and seeks to attribute the same to traditional leftist bogeymen. It's lazy, over-broad, and lacking in any sort of nuance.

The vigilante part is the most interesting part of the post. I think Americans have a healthy respect for vigilantism, from Clint Eastwood to Batman. That's the most interesting factor in this case to me.
 
OldGoldBeard said:
I think for lots of jaded and practiced OGBoarders (like myself), this becomes a great way to attack the entire analysis as a cop out, reading like "if you disagree, it's because you're a victim of the same indoctrination" or more reductively "questioning me only proves my point."

No offense intended, just struck me as somewhat amusing. As for the analysis itself, what makes it eye-roll-worthy--in my view, at least--is that it's entirely speculative as to GZ's outlook and thought process, and seeks to attribute the same to traditional leftist bogeymen. It's lazy, over-broad, and lacking in any sort of nuance.

The vigilante part is the most interesting part of the post. I think Americans have a healthy respect for vigilantism, from Clint Eastwood to Batman. That's the most interesting factor in this case to me.
Click to expand...

First, good points.

Second, I am not saying if you disagree with her you're automatically wrong, only that her point is controversial because it runs counter to (seeming) popular opinion on the matter.

I feel like we're all for the most part only able to speculate on his thought process and the events that transpired, and you're either willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that things happened the way he and his defense team said, and the way the evidence we have shows, or you can speculate otherwise, which is the wont of people like bell hooks, who as District pointed out, use cases like this as fodder for their well-rehearsed diatribes.

Not sure that it's necessarily lazy, but it is broad and unsubtle, as too is her wont.
 
TownieDeac said:
Wanted to just post a couple contrarian stances to the seeming consensus on here. I appreciate good discussion more than just "derrrr that's dumb" that bacon and scooter posted.
Click to expand...

We can discuss until the cows come home, but what I responded to earlier WAS dumb. It was not factual and completely mis-characterized the media's treatment of the case - at least all the media treatment I saw.

Much of what this article you just posted may be true - especially from a historical perspectice. But, I believe the extent to which they are trying to tie this case to all of that is hyperbole.

Our legal system is what it is - designed to let 10 guilty men walk free before you convict one innocent man. Whatever Z did, I just don't see where there was evidence to convict him of murder. Maybe that is the prosecutor's fault, or maybe the police - but, I don't think you can blame racial injustice or the jury for failing to convict.
 
Say what you will about bell hooks, but she's not dumb. Sort of a shock jockey for the radical left at this point, but far from dumb.

Regardless, thanks for clarifying, scooter. Interestingly, hooks has been criticized in the past for saying (in her texts, hopefully metaphorically) she wishes she could murder people who bore her.
 
SANFORD, FL—More than 16 months after he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in an altercation at a Florida condominium development, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was found, technically speaking, not guilty of murder Saturday, but c’mon.

Following two days of intense deliberations, a six-member jury determined that Zimmerman had, from a purely legal standpoint, not murdered Martin, a black teenager, in February 2012. According to jurors, Zimmerman lawfully acted in self-defense—but let’s be serious here, shall we?—when he shot Martin at point-blank range in the chest, leaving him dead within minutes.

“The jury acted within the letter of the law, I guess, if you want to be official about it, and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges,” said legal scholar Jeffrey Frazier about Zimmerman’s culpability in the events of February 26, 2012, which, trial or no trial, have been pretty clear all along, right? “Mr. Zimmerman did not violate any Florida state laws—although, please, give me a break—and is an innocent man, I suppose, if you’re sticking to the strict legal definition of that word.”

“And thus, this trial was properly conducted in full accordance with the U.S. justice system,” Frazier added. “For whatever that’s worth.”

The highly anticipated verdict was announced late Saturday evening, when the jury’s foreman informed the dozens gathered in the packed courtroom that, in purely technical terms, mind you, Zimmerman had been cleared of wrongdoing, using her middle and forefingers on both hands to pantomime quotation marks while stating the words “not guilty.”

“Is George Zimmerman, juridically speaking, guilty of a crime? Under the precise stipulations of this particular law, no, he wasn’t,” said the foreman, adding, “Although, I think we all know what happened here, don’t we? Seriously, don’t we? And so we the jury find the defendant, George Zimmerman, you know, Christ, I guess I have to say not guilty? Do I really have to say that?”

The trial, which gripped the nation for three weeks, was particularly notable for Judge Debra B. Nelson’s order barring any discussion of race, which she stated had no bearing on the case, but, again, let’s be serious here for a second, as the victim was a black teenager.

In the wake of the verdict, large protests are confirmed to have erupted in cities throughout the country, which, frankly, is pretty understandable because, Christ, did you watch this fucking trial? In response to the nationwide outrage over Zimmerman’s innocence, and, boy, we’re using the term “innocence” pretty goddamned loosely here, President Barack Obama urged calm.

“I ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son,” said Obama in an address Sunday, sighing. “We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.”

“But c’mon,” added Obama


.http://www.theonion.com/articles/zi...=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Quote:2:Default
 
she's keeper's polar opposite except they both like lowercase letters
 
TownieDeac said:
Say what you will about bell hooks, but she's not dumb. Sort of a shock jockey for the radical left at this point, but far from dumb.

Regardless, thanks for clarifying, scooter. Interestingly, hooks has been criticized in the past for saying (in her texts, hopefully metaphorically) she wishes she could murder people who bore her.
Click to expand...

Never said she was dumb - the quoted text that she (presumably) wrote was dumb.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
A person having their head slammed against a concrete sidewalk is not a fact that his life was in danger? Would you let someone do it to you?
Click to expand...

Like I said, that is a narrative that is in dispute. Is it not based mostly on Zimmerman's view of events?

If there was a scuffle and they fell to the ground and GZ's head hit the ground, it would leave the same marks and same "evidence", would it not?

I didn't say his life wasn't in danger....I said it is not irrefutable fact that it was.
 
It is supported by the physical evidence, which is more you can say for most of the other "facts" in this case.
 
He had an abrasion on the back of his head. What led to that abrasion is not known for sure.
 
PhDeac said:
Why is that laughable? It's pretty trusting to assume that an armed person you just put on his back won't shoot.
Click to expand...

Not really. In any scenario I can come up with in my head an unarmed man doesn't attack an armed man, who by all evidence, didn't pull the weapon out until a split second before Martin was shot. If Zimmerman had approached Martin with the intent to kill him, he would have done it from the get go. He's no criminal mastermind that carefully crafted getting beat up to cover up his desire to kill a kid he didn't know.

Just a shitty situation all the way around. I have faults with how both parties handled the night but the end result any way you cut it is Trayvon obviously getting senselessly killed.
 
@YourAnonNews
Why isn't the NRA saying the tragedy wouldn't have happened if Trayvon Martin was armed, & calling on young black men to get themselves guns?
 
tau06 said:
Just a shitty situation all the way around. I have faults with how both parties handled the night but the end result any way you cut it is Trayvon obviously getting senselessly killed.
Click to expand...

Both parties made some bad decisions that night, but I'd put the higher burden on the 27 year old man with a gun than an unarmed 17 year old kid. But that's not how the law is written.

TownieDeac said:
@YourAnonNews
Why isn't the NRA saying the tragedy wouldn't have happened if Trayvon Martin was armed, & calling on young black men to get themselves guns?
Click to expand...

NRA has been conspicuously silent since the decision was announced. Given their usual aggressive stances on gun issues, I thought they'd be all over this.
 
Seeing this situation unfold, especially on Facebook, initially confused me and then bothered me as a person. I've had maybe 30 black friends respond on FB with some combination of outrage and fear, but maybe 5 white friends who commented on it at all. These are personal friends of mine who I love, respect, grew up with, work with, socialize with, etc. In a nutshell, these were people who I knew were genuine in their feelings and emotions, and not just spouting off rhetoric.

Some of their posts were either factually or legally incorrect. However, I made no effort to "correct" them because its not my place to tell my friends how they should feel, especially when they've had life experiences that are different or maybe vastly different from my own. I finally concluded that my friends were "venting" and not "inviting a debate". I even reached out to some of my friends.

What really bothered me about our society was seeing black people in Walmart yesterday (which is the only place I went yesterday other than my all-white church) with looks of anxiety on their faces. Maybe it was just me reading too much into the situation, but I wondered that since my friends were genuinely outraged and afraid that total strangers were feeling the same emotions. I made an effort to smile, politely nod, or speak to several strangers yesterday hoping that in some small way I could restore some trust for humanity for some of the people who took the Zimmerman verdict personally.
 
In a world where black people generally don't feel safe and protected by the criminal justice system and those that are supposed to protect and serve us, we feel less safe and less protected now. You don't have to understand and I know many of you don't GAF and won't listen because it's not your experience. That's just the way it is. We know that's the way the system works. It's worked against us for centuries.
 
That's not what I said. But that's what you think I said. And that's part of the problem. You couldn't even read that brief passage and not look at it from your point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top