The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Travesty

George Zimmerman was in his car when he saw Trayvon Martin walking in a neighborhood where, in his view, he didn't belong. He called 911 to report a "suspicious guy." A 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow him. Trayvon Martin called a friend and told the friend that someone was following him. Zimmerman then got out of his car and followed Trayvon Martin on foot, eventually getting close enough to make physical contact. Trayvon Martin was scared, and he asked Zimmerman "why are you following me?" The two men then got into an altercation. Trayvon Martin was shot and killed during that altercation by George Zimmerman.

In Florida, the use of deadly force is justified in cases where, to paraphrase, you have fear that your life is threatened. In theory, this applies to when you are attacked, or have a justifiable fear of being attacked.

But what happens when you are the attacker, as George Zimmerman was that night, and then become frightened for your life after putting yourself in a position you never should have been in the first place? Apparently in Florida, killing is then justified.

The travesty is that Trayvon Martin was a black youth who was walking in a white neighborhood, which was enough to make him "suspicious" in the eyes of George Zimmerman. And, there is a high degree of probability that, had George Zimmerman had not followed him and initiated contact, Trayvon Martin would be alive today because Trayvon Martin was trying to get away from George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman is a wannabe cop, whose application was rejected due to a poor credit history. He had no business following and then initiating contact with Trayvon Martin; a 911 dispatcher told him not to. He ignored what the dispatcher told him and decided on his own to take what he considered to be the "law" into his own hands and killed Trayvon Martin.

The undisputed fact in this case is that George Zimmerman would never have feared for his life if he had not done what he was told not to do...he never would have been in "danger" in the first place had he not followed and made contact physical contact with Trayvon Martin.

So in Florida, if you're white, you can follow a black man who you deem to be "suspicious," initiate contact, get "scared," and then kill him.

Apparently.

Zimmerman is Hispanic,or at least he was until the last few weeks in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

So in Florida, if you're hispanic, you can follow a black man who you deem to be "suspicious," initiate contact, get assaulted with your head repeatedly slammed into concrete, and then shoot him in self defense.

Apparently.

---

ftfy


if you spend five minutes listening to the testimony in the court proceedings, how can anyone be surprised he was found not guilty?

Yeah really. Don't let TV news get your knickers in a twist.

Read this on another forum. Just copied and pasted his post.

"I present to you the facts. I also included my opinion at the end but you can feel free to ignore that part.

Who:

• George Zimmerman: - 29 Years Old - Hispanic Male - Insurance Fraud Investigator - Spearheaded a Neighborhood Watch program after a string of burglaries. - Lives in a gated community in Sanford Florida. - Record of Assaulting a Police Officer

• Trayvon Martin: - 17 Years Old. - Black Male. - Student - Suspended from school for Vandalism - Participated in and refereed illegal MMA fights. - Lives in Miami Gardens, Visiting father's France's house in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

• Rachel Jeantel - Trayvon's Friend. Originally claimed to be his girlfriend. - Was on the phone with Trayvon during the moments leading up to the shooting. - Originally claimed to be 16. That's why she was not featured before the trial. She is actually 19. - Ms. Jeantel has offered a few variations of events. For simplicity we will use the version she gave during the trial.

Where:
Sanford Florida. Gated community where Zimmerman lives as well as Tracy Martin's fiancé.

When:
February 26, 2012 between 7pm and 8pm. It was raining and getting dark.

What:
-Trayvon was visiting his fathers fiancé.
-Trayvon went to the gas station to get skittles and iced tea.
-Zimmerman notices Martin walking through people's yards.
-Zimmerman calls the non emergency line for the Local PD.
-Zimmerman describes Martin to dispatch and requests a police officer.
-Zimmerman says These Fucking Punks always get away.
-Trayvon notices Zimmerman watching him as tells Jeantel it is a creepy ass cracker.
-Trayvon continues to walk through people'a yards.
-Zimmerman gets out his his car in order to follow Trayvon and see why he is traveling through people's yards.
-Trayvon tells Jeantel "The nigga still following me"
-Trayvon begins to run towards his fathers finances house.
-Zimmerman begins to run in order to keep sight of Trayvon.
-Dispatcher hears wind noise and asks Zimmerman what he is doing.
-Zimmerman states he observing the subject and trying to find an address for the PD to intercept Trayvon.
-Dispatch tells Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that"
-Zimmerman stops and loses sight of Trayvon.
-Zimmerman heads back to his car.
-Trayvon tells Jeantel that he lost Zimmerman and he is right outside his fathers finances house.

*Up until this point Zimmerman's story and Jeantel's testimony match. Now the stories diverge.*

Zimmerman's Version: - As he is walking back to his car Trayvon approaches him and asks, "You got a problem?!" - Zimmerman says "No" - Trayvon says "You do now" - Trayvon attacks Zimmerman and smashes his head into the sidewalk. - Zimmerman draws his weapon while Trayvon is on top and fires into his chest killing him.

Jeantel's Version: (From Trial) - Trayvon is outside his Fathers finances house. - Trayvon suddenly says, "Oh Shit" - Jeantel hears Zimmerman say, "What you doing here?" - Jeantel then says she hears a bump and wet grass sounds and the phone goes out.

My opinion: - Jeantel's version doesn't make sense. If Mr. Martin was already at his Father's finances house then the altercation would have occurred there and not over a hundred yards to the north towards Zimmerman's SUV.
I think what happened was Trayvon doubled back and went looking for Zimmerman. After all he didn't feel he was doing anything wrong and would've been pissed that a white guy was following him as wanted to teach him a lesson.


I think we had two hot headed individuals that both had opportunities to walk away.
Unfortunately they didn't and one was killed.
I believe that Zimmerman had every right to simply observe Trayvon and call the police.
Unless we can prove that Zimmerman walked up to Trayvon and started a physical confrontation with him then his claim of self defense should be upheld.
Just because Trayvon was annoyed that a (what he thought was) white guy was following him does not give him the right to use any physical force.
It all comes down to who threw the first punch. Based on witness testimony and the layout of the neighborhood I believe that Trayvon doubled back and went looking for Zimmerman."

Wasn't the problem that the prosecutor went for murder when manslaughter/culpable homicide would have been a safer bet?

US prosecutors are elected and so look to pander to their electorate, but this isn't the case in the UK or Scotland, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelf

Wasn't the problem that the prosecutor went for murder when manslaughter/culpable homicide would have been a safer bet?

US prosecutors are elected and so look to pander to their electorate, but this isn't the case in the UK or Scotland, for example.

---

Yep that was a part of it. Maybe they were trying to pander to the ratings on TV.

here's the link to thread in the political section where this discussion has been ongoing :
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=65131

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelf

Wasn't the problem that the prosecutor went for murder when manslaughter/culpable homicide would have been a safer bet?

US prosecutors are elected and so look to pander to their electorate, but this isn't the case in the UK or Scotland, for example.

---

They went for manslaughter also, where jurors only needed to decide that Mr. Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in Mr. Martin’s death.

Surely, he did that.

But because of Florida’s laws, prosecutors had to persuade jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, which was impossible because there definitely was a fight between the two men, and Zimmerman had injuries.

Tough case, wasn't surprised by the verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngblood61

Tough case, wasn't surprised by the verdict.

---

me too as well...not the least bit
...the operative key words here are Travesty and Florida...the 2 seem to go hand in hand....from the recount fiasco in 2000 to the current governor w/ his voter suppression and anti abortion BS and everything in between....I called it from the git go

The prosecution blew this one plain and simple.Complete ineptitude.

If people in the media would let things be and race hustlers like Jesse and Al would have left it alone, this case would have never went to trial. It doesn't help when Obama sticks his nose in things and the justice dept. sends people in to help gin up racial unrest.

WOO HOO! About to put the law degree to some use. No offense to Dderek, who has an excellent post on this, which I've copied part of below. I've edited it for relevance to the actual charge of murder, and the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

Before I do that though, a quick lesson in Criminal Law 101. Should be fairly straight forward, but for some of the foreigners who might be looking at this, I'm kind of trying to get them up to speed.

1) First, charges. Murder has various degrees in US Courts. Murder 1, Murder 2, etc. These vary by state but most Murder charges usually have a mental state of intent to kill. That's pretty much all you really need to know about Murder. Manslaughter is tricky and varies by State, here in the USA. There are two types, voluntary and involuntary. Look, a link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslau...ted_States_law)

With voluntary, the types of manslaughter, 1) Provocation, is you are the person provoking the altercation, and "accidentally" kill someone. As will be seen below, this doesn't apply as technically Zimmerman didn't provoke this. Imperfect Self Defense. Doens't apply as Florida has Self Defense as a complete defense. And finally, Diminished Capacity. This is usually reserved for people with mental illness or defects.

With involuntary manslaughter, there are only two rellevant types that would apply here. First, Constructive, you need to have a misdemeanor involved. As I'm going to explain below, Zimmerman was not committing any misdemeanors at the time. It seems very hard to believe, but it's actually true. The second type Criminally negligent, you really have to have acted in a way that shows you have no respect for human life, you are acting recklessly and endangering others. This is the only manslaughter type that technically applies. But under Florida law, Criminally neglegent manslaughter doesn't exist. Only Constructive.


2) Defenses - Within each criminal act, there are defenses. Self Defense is obviously the one most people go to. Insanity, duress, and others are included. But each one of these defenses is limited and may only be applied in certain circumstances. There are limits to the amount of force you can use. For example, you may only use the amount of force it takes to get a normal person to stop beating you. If you are weaker, you can pick up a log and clock someone to get the to stop. The problem is, if they've stopped, you can't wail on them with a log until they're dead, that's excessive. Only the force required to provide defense. Remember this, because why Zimmerman is free will make sense later on in this posting. There is also the concept of mitigating circumstances. With regard to manslaughter, yeah the shooting of a gun may not have been meant to kill someone, but can you aim a warning shot while getting beat down? Can you keep from flinching in a way that keeps you from a reflex pulling of the trigger?

The same perfect defense of Self Defense for Murder, works with Manslaughter too, in Florida.

3) The Irrelevant Stuff - Every other lawyer I know, knew Zimmerman was going to get off with an acquittal. It was a no-brainer to most of us. Prosecutors don't count, they think everyone is guilty and should get the chair. Real attorneys, we knew better. Stand Your Ground, that got a lot of hype in the news. It was never mentioned at trial. It was irrelevant and didn't apply. So forget about it, don't let it boil your blood, and don't let the media get you worked up over this. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the verdict. In fact, just read the earlier post below, and notice which of the facts were actually relevant. You'll see the ones I removed noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dderek123

"Who:

• 
  George Zimmerman: - <Irrelevant Section Omitted> - <Irrelevant Section Omitted>
  - Spearheaded a Neighborhood Watch program after a string of burglaries.
  - Lives in a gated community in Sanford Florida.
  - Record of Assaulting a Police Officer

• 
  Trayvon Martin: - <Irrelevant Section Omitted>. - <Irrelevant Section Omitted>
  - Suspended from school for Vandalism
  - Participated in and refereed illegal MMA fights. <this is highly relevant to the level of defense needed in response.>
  - Lives in Miami Gardens, Visiting father's France's house in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

• 
  -Rachel Jeantel - Trayvon's Friend. Originally claimed to be his girlfriend. <deceit> -
  -Was on the phone with Trayvon during the moments leading up to the shooting. <untrustworthy testimony based on other lies previously told> -
  -Originally claimed to be 16. <deciet, can be used to show testimony is untrustworth> That's why she was not featured before the trial. She is actually 19. <Shows character trait of deciet.> -
  -Ms. Jeantel has offered a few variations of events. <lack of consistency in statements, shows possible deceit.>

Where:Sanford Florida. Gated community where Zimmerman lives as well as Tracy Martin's fiancé.

When:
February 26, 2012 between 7pm and 8pm. <Irrelevant Section Omitted>

What:
-Trayvon was visiting his fathers fiancé. <relevant only for establishing location, and destination>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>.
-Zimmerman notices Martin walking through people's yards. <relevant to show possible thread, as suspected burglars might be dangerous, and/or armed>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-Trayvon continues to walk through people'a yards. <continues to establish pattern of possible burglar, possibly dangerous.>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-<Irrelevant Section Omitted>
-Zimmerman heads back to his car. <THE MOST IMPORTANT UNDISPUTED PART OF THIS TRIAL. Shows lack of intent to harm Martin by Zimmerman, he gave up, and retreated.>
-Trayvon tells Jeantel that he lost Zimmerman and he is right outside his fathers finances house. <Also important. All Martin had to do was go inside the house. The end, no one gets hurt.>

*Up until this point Zimmerman's story and Jeantel's testimony match. Now the stories diverge.*

Zimmerman's Version:
- As he is walking back to his car Trayvon approaches him and asks, "You got a problem?!" <This shows Martin is the agressor, not Zimmerman.>
- Zimmerman says "No" - Trayvon says "You do now" <relevant for intent on the part of Martin to do harm to Zimmerman.>
- Trayvon attacks Zimmerman and smashes his head into the sidewalk.
- Zimmerman draws his weapon while Trayvon is on top and fires into his chest killing him.

Jeantel's Version: (From Trial) <Bear in mind that the witness has already been shown to lie about facts, herself, and her relationship to the Martin. Her entire testimony is untrustworthy, and might as well be discarded. Read what is below, but then ignore it, and realize you only have the undisputed facts above, and then the Zimmeran variance, which has factual support, and for all intents will be treated as fact, since there is nothing trustworthy to dispute it.>
- <Irrelevant Section Omitted>
- <Irrelevant Section Omitted>
- Jeantel hears Zimmerman say, "What you doing here?" <untrustworth, cannot be relied upon.>
- <Irrelevant Section Omitted>

---

Nothing else mattered. Look, it sounds horrible to say this, but you have to look at it without lives being involved. Like numbers or two bricks with conflicting stories.

The part where Zimmerman follows Martin. Doesn't matter. I can in any of the 50 US States and the United Kingdom (I'm working on my Solicitor's License there, we just covered this) I can get out of my car and follow you 2 inches away from you at any time, and as long as I have a right to be in that place, I can follow you anywhere. No joke. So Zimmerman getting out of the car and following? Irrelevant. If someone is following you, you call the cops. Or you go somewhere they can't follow you, like inside your father's fiance's house, or knock on a neighbors door and ask them to call the cops or let you in. That's all you have to do.

I can follow you and ask you all kinds of questions. You don't have to answer them unless I can identify myself as law enforcement, and provide proof of that. Even then, you don't have to answer any questions without legal representation present, as long as you make that wish known to the law enforcement official. Martin didn't want to answer any questions, great, walk inside the house, give him the finger and say "when you get a badge, you know where I'll be." Done, easy, and no one dies.


I'm going to ignore my usual disdain for NYSPRod, because he actually does bring up something important below

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

They went for manslaughter also, where jurors only needed to decide that Mr. Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in Mr. Martin’s death. <See the Manslaughter definition above, remove everything that is irrelevant from the facts, and then you realize that manslaughter wasn't going to happen either. >

Surely, he did that. <No He didn't. Not by any legal standard.>

But because of Florida’s laws, prosecutors had to persuade jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, <That's pretty much the law in every state, not just Florida.> which was impossible because there definitely was a fight between the two men, and Zimmerman had injuries. <Again no, because there are levels of defense that you may use.>

---

Here's the part that is going to mess with your head. Under the law, if you pick a fight with Mike Tyson, first, you're a really stupid person. But also, you are going to get your ass handed to you. Even if you pick the fight, deliver the first blow, if you are getting creamed by Tyson, you are allowed the right under the law to retreat. Yeah, you'll be suffering in a hospital, and have permanent injuries, but you'll live to tell the tale. Assault? Probably not, because in most jurisdictions, when Tyson joins in, you both have consented to fight. If Tyson won't let you retreat, run away to mommy and lick your wounds like the pussy you are, then he's on the hook for assault. Because you are no longer of consent.

So, Martin and Zimmerman. It doesn't matter who threw the first punch. At this point, they are fighting. Martin could have ran, could have stayed and took a beating, and Zimmerman would have a second assault charge and probably conviction. But he didn't. Martin fought back. Consent given, it's go time, and Zimmerman is going to get the beatdown of his pudgy little lifetime.

But wait.

When Zimmerman is on his back, on the ground, there is no ability to retreat. Consent to fight is no longer possible, as the ability to retreat is gone. Martin by being on top of him and pressing him to the ground is at this point, converted under the law, to the agressor and committing assault. At this point, since Zimmerman lacks the capacity to consent to the fight, and is helpless in his current state, he has options at law for defense.

Is there something nearby he can use as a weapon, other than the gun? No. There is some debate as to whether Martin was going for the weapon. If true, Zimmerman is now looking at being on the wrong end of deadly force being used against him with his own weapon. He is absolutely entitled to use "Like Force" meaning he can use deadly force for his own defense.

Ok, let's say Martin didn't go for the weapon at Zimmerman's hip. Instead, he's still getting beaten, and the only thing that happens is he reaches for the gun. That beadown is still happening, he is still only using the force necessary, to preserve his safety by pulling, and pointing the weapon.

The Outcome:
Murder? There was no intent provable. Zimmerman was walking back to his car. Nothing was ever shown that he systematically planned to follow and shoot him, and there was nothing ever shown that proved Zimmerman had intent to shoot him before the fight broke out, and the need for defense was presented.

Manslaughter: Negligence wasn't at issue, and isn't part of the Florida Law. Only Constructive Manslaughter applied in this matter, and Zimmerman had not committed a misdemeanor (or felony for that matter) at the time the gun was drawn.


So regardless of what you think of the outcome, the truth is that the Court, the Jury, and the legal system worked exactly as it should, and this is the correct outcome, despite the tragic and senseless loss of life that could have been prevented had two cooler heads prevailed, and things didn't spiral out of control.

I feel for Martin's parents, and am sorry for their loss. But again, the system worked as it should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jennyj23

If people in the media would let things be and race hustlers like Jesse and Al would have left it alone, this case would have never went to trial. It doesn't help when Obama sticks his nose in things and the justice dept. sends people in to help gin up racial unrest.

---

well, the naacp have a petition to have the department of justice launch a civil rights investigation on the case- so it's not over yet

http://i.imgur.com/C9zvEJm.png

Zimmerman should had been guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman's story doesn't make sense. Zimmerman is much bigger than Martin. Zimmerman is over 100 pounds bigger than Martin. He was the stronger person so I highly doubt Martin was able to put Zimmerman on the ground.

Secondly, there is no way that Zimmerman's head was banged into concrete. His head injuries would had been much worse. His injuries were pretty minor. None of his injuries were life threating.

Thirdly, let's look at Martin's point of view. There is a stranger following him. He is a young teenage who used common sense and tried to run away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman ran after Martin. Again let's look at this from Martin's point of view. What would a teenage think when a stranger is following and running after them? He clearly thought he was in danger.

Look at the facts.
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/19/trayvo...nford-florida/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRANKLIN

Thirdly, let's look at Martin's point of view. There is a stranger following him.

---

you've got it wrong. zimmerman wasn't following him. he was sitting in his car, noticed martin- martin noticed him, walked around then ran. zimmerman ran after him- was told not to do that, said "okay, i'll go back to the front and wait for the cops and tell them where he ran to" hang up and ran into martin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JenniferParisHusband

WOO HOO! About to put the law degree to some use.

---

Hi JPH, could you post this in the other thread also. Wish you had posted this in that thread awhile ago...lol. You will notice that you'd be one of the very few people with a criminal law degree that post in the political section.

This is an emotional case...you will find that some people won't argue the actual definition of the law with you...they will argue according to what they think the law should be....or believe it is. They don't realize that most of them would never have been picked as jurors in this case because of their preconceived notions.
Good luck in your career counselor. BTW...are you a practicing criminal lawyer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

you've got it wrong. zimmerman wasn't following him. he was sitting in his car, noticed martin- martin noticed him, walked around then ran. zimmerman ran after him- was told not to do that, said "okay, i'll go back to the front and wait for the cops and tell them where he ran to" hang up and ran into martin.

---

You've contracted yourself in the bold print.

Zimmerman was following him. He was following Martin by driving in his SUV. Martin noticed this and eventually ran when Zimmerman continued to follow him in the SUV. Zimmerman continues following Martin by running after Martin.

I just fell on this one...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...58286606_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I just fell on this one...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...58286606_n.jpg

---

Black folks don't have 2nd amendment rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silcc69

Black folks don't have 2nd amendment rights.

---

:iagree:

Black people are also not treated the same as others.

the really messed up thing is no matter whether he is guilty or not the only people that will care about this case next week will be the ones trying to sell something. That is just the world we live in.

Only in America would hispanic be described as a race.

I know hundreds of Spanish people, most of them white. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelf

Wasn't the problem that the prosecutor went for murder when manslaughter/culpable homicide would have been a safer bet?

US prosecutors are elected and so look to pander to their electorate, but this isn't the case in the UK or Scotland, for example.

---

Excellent point. And in Scotland there is still recourse to the not proven verdict as well, which would have been appropriate in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZWind

me too as well...not the least bit
...the operative key words here are Travesty and Florida...the 2 seem to go hand in hand....from the recount fiasco in 2000 to the current governor w/ his voter suppression and anti abortion BS and everything in between....I called it from the git go

---

:iagree: 100%!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silcc69

Black folks don't have 2nd amendment rights.

---

Actually, you need to learn some basics about Florida's stand-your-ground law. In Florida, you can claim self-defense and/or immunity under the stand-your-ground law. Zimmerman's lawyer(s) argued that he should be found not guilty because he was defending himself from an attack. They didn't claim that his self-defense falls under their state's stand-your-ground law. Under Florida's stand-your-ground law, the statute grants a defendant immunity from criminal prosecution. During a pretrial hearing, a Judge decides if the defendant is granted immunity. Zimmerman waived that hearing. The trial was about plain o' self-defense.

Marissa was sentenced to 20 years because the shooting didn't fall under the stand-your-ground law and she had a crappy lawyer. She left to get a firearm to fire those warning shots. Under the law, she wasn't in imminent danger because she left the threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRANKLIN

You've contracted yourself in the bold print.

---

do you mean contradicted?

also, i disagree with your series of events. that's not what was presented in court, which might be the reason you think zimmerman is guilty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JenniferParisHusband

WOO HOO! About to put the law degree to some use.
So regardless of what you think of the outcome, the truth is that the Court, the Jury, and the legal system worked exactly as it should, and this is the correct outcome, despite the tragic and senseless loss of life that could have been prevented had two cooler heads prevailed, and things didn't spiral out of control.

---

If Zimmerman had been found guilty by the jury, then the system would have worked just as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JenniferParisHusband

WOO HOO! About to put the law degree to some use.

---

Wicked post man.

If a white guy ventured into a black neighborhood and a black man followed and confronted him on the basis he thought the guy was there to commit a crime, and there had been a fight which resulted in the white guy being killed, does anyone have any doubt at all the outcome of a trail would be the exact opposite of what happened in the Zimmerman case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

If a white guy ventured into a black neighborhood and a black man followed and confronted him on the basis he thought the guy was there to commit a crime, and there had been a fight which resulted in the white guy being killed, does anyone have any doubt at all the outcome of a trail would be the exact opposite of what happened in the Zimmerman case?

---

I had the same question.

Isn't Zimmerman Hispanic? This has nothing to do with white vs black, the race card is played far to often for far to many things. With the evidence that was presented there was no other verdict possible, the state of Florida over charged him instead of going for a lesser charge from the beginning. At the same time i was surprised at a straight "not guilty" i was expecting a hung jury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankBurns

Isn't Zimmerman Hispanic? This has nothing to do with white vs black, the race card is played far to often for far to many things. With the evidence that was presented there was no other verdict possible, the state of Florida over charged him instead of going for a lesser charge from the beginning. At the same time i was surprised at a straight "not guilty" i was expecting a hung jury.

---

His father is white. And his mom: Hispanic....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silcc69

Black folks don't have 2nd amendment rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben in LA

I had the same question.

---

Not a chance of that, I am afraid that the country is taking steps back rather than moving forward.

- Look at what is going on in multiple states around the abortion issue (several are sneaking in changes with various gimmicks).

- Voting rights amendment being basically nullified (watch all of those same states make it harder to vote)

- We are headed back to these times it seems.....

Medgar Evers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emmett Till - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankBurns

Isn't Zimmerman Hispanic? This has nothing to do with white vs black, the race card is played far to often for far to many things. With the evidence that was presented there was no other verdict possible, the state of Florida over charged him instead of going for a lesser charge from the beginning. At the same time i was surprised at a straight "not guilty" i was expecting a hung jury.

---

He's half Peruvian, half white.

Hispanics are European

they have spanish ancestry



The problem arises because people refer to

hispanics as "the 4th race" when in fact they are a hybrid of the three fundamental races.

But the point with language is that words mean what people mean by them and not a textbook or scientific definition. And in that sense, most people see enough commonality among enough hispanics for the word to have common currency.

So, they become a de facto race.


hispanic's have origin from spain


hispanic's are a mix with white,native american,african

The Eyes of Nye - Race


YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Part 1 of 13)
YouTube

White skin appeared just 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, as dark-skinned humans migrated to colder climes and lost much of their melanin pigment.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/20-things-skin


see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian


Race is an old concept that should probably be discarded. It was

created by people who had a very limited knowledge of their world. If you

look at any genetic map (mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA), you can

see there is no biological basis for the idea of a white or black or asian

race.

Here's a map

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

"I was able to trace the family trees of several prominent people

everyone regardless if you are white ,Spanish ,Mexican or Asian

can traced there origins back to two Ethiopians ,a man and a women.


these two Ethiopians are everyones ancestors


http://www.africandna.com/tests.aspx
http://www.africandna.com/tests.aspx

http://www.africandna.com/

http://www.africandna.com/history.aspx

http://www.africandna.com/history.aspx
http://www.africandna.com/tests.aspx


Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., (born September 16, 1950) is an American literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, editor, and public intellectual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Only in America would Hispanic be described as a race.

I know hundreds of Spanish people, most of them white. :confused:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jennyj23

If people in the media would let things be and race hustlers like Jesse and Al would have left it alone, this case would have never went to trial. It doesn't help when Obama sticks his nose in things and the justice dept. sends people in to help gin up racial unrest.

---

....if Jesse and Al had let things be, there wouldn't even have been a case to not go to trial. Sharpton got involved, not on his own as a "hustler", but at the behest of the grieving parents whose son had just been murdered and the Sanford cops had let the admitted killer (whose father was a judge) go scott free w/out even an arrest. Had it been your teenage son whose life had been snuffed out, you would be grateful for some "hustlers" to step in and demand justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysprod

He's half Peruvian, half white.

---

....and all twat.

Maybe a pussy who fears for his life fighting a skinny black kid shouldn't be in law enforcement. Maybe he should mind his own business.