Jump to content
Awoo.

The Trayvon Martin Case


Nepenthe

Recommended Posts

So the way you dress should change the standards of which you're treated?!   Besides, the young child was dressed like Trayvon Martin, not a 'thug'
Well maybe Trayvon Martin was dressed like a thug too then, which was what raised the suspicions of George Zimmerman. Look, I have no idea; all I know is that when I looked at them and the way they were dressed, I got a "sketchy character" vibe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck all of that shit. The stupidity here is actually cringeworthy. Mindless attention whoring and getting people riled up.

EDIT: Plus, that "young CHILD" was dressed like a thug.

"Thug" is defined by behavior, not dress. A thug is "a violent person, a criminal."

 

Ergo, thugs can wear any clothing ranging from dirty hand-me-downs to clean-pressed suits. Or y'know, in some cases, police uniforms.

Edited by Doc Eggman
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thug" is defined by behavior, not dress. A thug is "a violent person, a criminal."

Ergo, thugs can wear any clothing ranging from dirty hand-me-downs or clean-pressed suits. Or y'know, in some cases, police uniforms.

Correct. I suppose the association between behaviour types and dress comes from passive observation of what combinations seem to pop up most often.

EDIT: I am so going to internet hell just for thinking any of this. I'm against discrimination on stuff such as race or other superficial things (Which probably includes dress), as it is illogical, yet look at what I am saying... I'm now asking myself "What do I really believe?"

Edited by Frogging101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the hell defines "looks like a thug" anyways?

 

Also, O'Riley's asstalking earlier was funny to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe Trayvon Martin was dressed like a thug too then, which was what raised the suspicions of George Zimmerman. Look, I have no idea; all I know is that when I looked at them and the way they were dressed, I got a "sketchy character" vibe.

You still didn't answer my question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe Trayvon Martin was dressed like a thug too then, which was what raised the suspicions of George Zimmerman. Look, I have no idea; all I know is that when I looked at them and the way they were dressed, I got a "sketchy character" vibe.
You got a sketchy character vibe because flawed cultural perceptions and media tells us that black people in loose, comfortable clothes like hoodies are "usually up to no good," and it is the same thing that got Trayvon killed. This is an inherently racist perception, and I hope it's one we can all keep in check and rationally dismiss it for the silliness that it is, and perhaps take a look at other views we have on other groups of people to clean out other bullshit.
  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: I am so going to internet hell just for thinking any of this. I'm against discrimination on stuff such as race or other superficial things (Which probably includes dress), as it is illogical, yet look at what I am saying... I'm now asking myself "What do I really believe?"

And that right there is the crux of the situation. As much as we like to think we as individuals and as a society have moved on from judging people based on their race or other superficial traits, we absolutely have not. Put simply, if Trayvon were white, this probably wouldn't have happened. Heck, if he were female, this probably wouldn't have happened. If he were 10 years younger, this probably wouldn't have happened, either. I remember taking some of the Implicit Association Tests released by Harvard a while back and was pretty much shocked by how many stereotypes I -and others- subconciously absorb and use in decision making, even stereotypes that don't benefit your personal identity. If there's one thing I hope comes out of this awful tragedy and needless loss of life, it's that people take something from the conversation it started on unfair profiling. Racial profiling is a problem, and we can't fight it until we're aware of it.
  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck all of that shit. The stupidity here is actually cringeworthy. Mindless attention whoring and getting people riled up.

EDIT: Plus, that "young CHILD" was dressed like a thug.

 

Are you implying that he DESERVED to be shot because of the way he dressed? Because it's sure as FUCKING HELL sounds like it.

 

It's not mindless attention whoring. They have a right to march and protest if they want and people will be riled up for a while the verdict was only a day ago. So the tension won't stop for about a week or two.

Edited by Felix Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that he DESERVED to be shot because of the way he dressed? Because it's sure as FUCKING HELL sounds like it.

 

rolleyes.gif

 

 

It's not mindless attention whoring. They have a right to march and protest if they want and people will be riled up for a while the verdict was only a day ago. So the tension won't stop for about a week or two.

 

The thing linked in Chaos Warp's post was mindless attention whoring even though the protest itself was legitimate.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that he DESERVED to be shot because of the way he dressed? Because it's sure as FUCKING HELL sounds like it.

Uh, no? I seriously have no idea how you got that from what I said. I wasn't even talking about Treyvon Martin in the text you quoted.

The jury couldn't call him guilty of murder because the possibility of self-defense (as we define it) was not disproved, and self-defense is equally justifiable to the charge of manslaughter as it is 2nd degree murder. The jury isn't at fault, the system is.

Perhaps in this case the system is at fault, yes. But no system is perfect. Ever. The concept of "reasonable doubt" and it being a prerequisite for a conviction is there for a reason. That check is in place to prevent potentially innocent people from being convicted. "Innocent until proven guilty". This was a difficult case because there was so little evidence; they can't convict someone if they don't know what actually happened.

I'm not saying Zimmerman's necessarily innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The system isn't perfect but it's the best we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kinda telling that we assume a jury that acquitted him was acting appropriately and objectively and one that would've at least put him away for manslaughter for the outright knowable facts that he did profile and kill an unarmed minor would've been biased, even though one of the jurors- B37- who was not only a concealed carry permit holder at one time, but also has a husband who is a lawyer and is on record for describing the peaceful Sanford protests as rioting, just had an interview with Anderson Cooper where she blatantly admits she already felt sorry for George from the beginning and thought poor ol' him was just in a bad situation in his need to keep his neighborhood safe from crime. She also had a book deal going immediately after the verdict was had, but that fell through after the literary agent "reviewed" the situation.

Objectivity my ass.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we're back to jury-kicking. Wonderful.
 

If there's any change to be made then it needs be legislative because I still think that there was little chance of convincing a jury of a person going vigilante without anything more than probable cause. Whereas there might be ways to change and modify the laws about provocation. (Though that may lead to bad things and would have to be thought through very carefully.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two people admitted they believed he was guilty of manslaughter and one thought he could get 2nd degree, and this is under the oath that they didn't know anything about the case beforehand, which we can all reasonably assume is a bit of a crock unless they all somehow deliberately went on years' long news blackouts. They didn't only look at the evidence, at least not fully. B37 admitted she felt none of the prosecution's witnesses were credible despite the fact that most of them were competent and the judge never impeached any of them, even Rachel Jeantel, meaning she deliberately decided to say, "Screw that side of the story" which- under an optimistic, idealistic view of the law- is wrong. The point being, juries can also be fallible. They can make mistakes. Any human element introduced into the equation means as such, and the flaws of our entire legal system are again not features, they are just that- flaws. We can talk about the shitty laws all day, those aren't out of the laser sights either. But when a juror can literally come out to you and admit that they had personal biases and stakes in getting an acquittal, you damn right I'm gonna kick her.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nepenthe has every right to be upset over this revelation. Jurors are NOT supposed to have biases, in favor of either side; she shouldn't have made it past screening.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If jurors were supposed to not have biases then technically no-one would ever be able to serve on a jury. The question is whether they are biased about specific things and if they're biased enough and clearly the judge didn't see it that way.

 

With everything it keeps coming down to the fact that people don't agree with the way that the law is being handled, and that's fine. But that's why the law is the important thing to change. Is a persons biases acceptable to society because they coincide?

Edited by Son Gerku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering she thought Zimmerman wasn't guilty before the trial even began, that's biased enough. She shouldn't have been on the jury. This is a non-argument. "Feeling sorry" for the Defendant is an automatic disqualification when being pressed by the attorneys during jury picking. So either the prosecution didn't ask her such a question, or she outright lied (which is illegal).

Edited by Wreck-It Ralph
  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Frogging. Then what was it directed to?

Chaos Warp linked to something on Tumblr containing a video and a ridiculous rant. One line said "Thank GOD they pulled that young CHILD away from that cop at 4:00 TAKE THESE RACISTS DOWN!!!!"

I commented on the way the "young CHILD" (who looks nothing like a young child) is dressed. No-one got shot in that video. You think I was talking about Martin? He's far from a young child, so I wouldn't have been referring to him.

Edited by Frogging101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaos Warp linked to something on Tumblr containing a video and a ridiculous rant. One line said "Thank GOD they pulled that young CHILD away from that cop at 4:00 TAKE THESE RACISTS DOWN!!!!"

I commented on the way the "young CHILD" (who looks nothing like a young child) is dressed. No-one got shot in that video. You think I was talking about Martin? He's far from a young child, so I wouldn't have been referring to him.

 

Well next time rephrase it. Because it did kinda sound like you were talking about Trayvon.

Edited by Felix Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well next time rephrase it. Because it did kinda sound like you were talking about Treyvon.

Sorry Felix, but it really didn't. I can't even think of how I could have rephrased it to be any more specific (seeing as I don't know the name of the person in question). The context made it painfully obvious what I was talking about.

Edited by Frogging101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well next time rephrase it. Because it did kinda sound like you were talking about Trayvon.

No, you really were the one jumping on hoops.

Rigged jury and laws applied unevenly. I agree Zimmerman isn't innocent but had to be pleaded as such because of the law. Problem is, law's not going to be changed as a result to prevent future repetitions of this, and then there's the other lady who got convicted guilty for shooting a roof...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media didn't "racialize" the case. The entire situation had inherent connotations pertaining to race relations in this country, from the fact that Trayvon was drug-tested and George wasn't to the fact that George and his entire family are on record for saying racist things to the fact that people had to march to get a trial in the first place to the fact that these kinds of violent crimes statistically affect black men negatively more to the fact that Martin has undergone sheer character assassination as a potential "thug" who "beat the shit out of Zimmerman". There was plenty of racial tension inherent in the case. The fact that the media picked up on it and ran with it doesn't mean anything other than they ran with it.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean if a 30-year old black man killed a 17-year old white Hispanic, people would be hailing him as a hero? That is fascinating. Praytell why do you believe black men get preferential treatment when it comes to matter of law enforcement?

  • Thumbs Up 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the races of Trayvon and Zimmerman were switched, we either wouldn't be talking about this, or the media would be hailing Zimmerman as a hero. Fact.

And this is where the privilege is starting to kick in to blinding the reality of race issues...

 

That is not what would happen if the races was switched. It would most likely be the exact opposite.

Edited by ChaosSupremeSonîc
  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.