George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I'm a little sick of this as well. This case was a b.s. manufactured storyline for the start. The news needed a white man to make the story sellable so they created a man who" identifies as Hispanic" whose father is "white" and whose mother is "Hispanic". In reality Zimmerman has native American and African roots through his mother and Jewish roots through his dad. Not quite as good a story. Still, if George's last name is Sanchez or Rodriguez we probably never about it.

His dad's an Argentinian Jew. He's Hispanic too...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The bigger issue, IMHO, is not the case itself, but the "stand your ground" laws. This idea that you implicitly own whatever soil lies beneath you is bizarre. More importantly, humans are remarkably poor judges of what constitutes legitimate danger. If people shot at anyone who threatened them or otherwise made them feel afraid, I shudder to think at what the body count would be. Maybe that's what the gun nuts want.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Oh, and another thing. "THERE'S NOTHING RACIST, NO RACISM HERE, MOVE ALONG" is not how you disprove the existence of racism. Instead, you critically examine the facts in full deference of the situation, not blinded by white privilege, but willing to concede that you may find something that you didn't want to find.

 

[Alceste]

Source? I wanna send it around at work.

http://thegrio.com/2012/11/20/71-ye...aughter-jury-rejects-stand-your-ground-claim/

 

[Alceste]

It could be racism, but there is also this extremely provocative act by the defendant....

(I don't think she reads the articles she doesn't link.)

Yeah, cuz stalking somebody, like Zimmerman did, isn't at all provocative. :sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

Oh, and another thing. "THERE'S NOTHING RACIST, NO RACISM HERE, MOVE ALONG" is not how you disprove the existence of racism. Instead, you critically examine the facts in full deference of the situation, not blinded by white privilege, but willing to concede that you may find something that you didn't want to find.

Especially if the way you go about it is by saying a guy with a very light complexion isn't "white" because he has some native, hispanic and Jewish blood.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, cuz stalking somebody, like Zimmerman did, isn't at all provocative. :sarcastic

Not nearly as much so.
Brandishment alone is a very serious crime.

 

[Alceste]

Not nearly as much so.
Brandishment alone is a very serious crime.

Nice. So even though the victim's own daughter testified that the guy with the gun was walking away and going home when he was attacked by her father, who was "loud", he's still guilty of manslaughter even though he insists he didn't "brandish". And race has nothing to do with your opinion. Nevertheless, Zimmerman's account can be trusted and Dooley's can not, even though his victim's daughter's testimony supported him.

Right.

 

[Revoltingest]

And race has nothing to do with your opinion.

Correct.
Just as you don't hate Hispanics.
We're both multi-cultural egalitarians.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Especially if the way you go about it is by saying a guy with a very light complexion isn't "white" because he has some native, hispanic and Jewish blood.

He doesn't identify as white; if you ask George Zimmerman himself he'll say he's Hispanic (based on his mother's comments on TV). I don't know if it's different in Canada, but in the US "white" means Caucasian, not light-skinned. White people sure as hell don't consider Zimmerman white.

 

[Alceste]

Who wants to bet money that the jury in both cases was mostly non-black (if we have to split hairs about whether half-Argentinian half-Whites are white)?

I honestly don't know, so it's an honest bet.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Who wants to bet money that the jury in both cases was mostly non-black (if we have to split hairs about whether half-Argentinians are white)?

I honestly don't know, so it's an honest bet.

He's half Argentinian, all Hispanic... There is no half white. Zimmerman's father is Hispanic, not white.

 

[Alceste]

He's half Argentinian, all Hispanic...

I'm perfectly happy to use the phrase "non-black" if nobody can agree what a "white person" is. If you attack while black and get killed, your killer is 100% innocent. If you attack a black man and get killed, your killer is 100% guilty.

Justice in Florida hasn't changed much over the years, has it?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I'm perfectly happy to use the phrase "non-black" if nobody can agree what a "white person" is. If you attack while black and get killed, your killer is 100% innocent. If you attack a black man and get killed, your killer is 100% guilty.

Justice in Florida hasn't changed much over the years, has it?

"Non-black" is a lot more accurate than white.
Regardless of anyone's race, there was not nearly enough evidence for a conviction. Had Trayvon Martin been a white kid, the only difference in the case would have been that the media would call Zimmerman Hispanic.

 

[Alceste]

"Non-black" is a lot more accurate than white.
Regardless of anyone's race, there was not nearly enough evidence for a conviction. Had Trayvon Martin been a white kid, the only difference in the case would have been that the media would call Zimmerman Hispanic.

What do you mean? The basic facts are not even in dispute. Zimmerman stalked and killed somebody. He confessed to the crime. His defense was that he was attacked and shot his attacker in self defense. It's identical to the other man's case, except that the black guy got convicted and the non-black guy didn't. Oh yeah, and the other difference is that the guy who got convicted was actually trying to walk away when he was attacked, and the age and weight discrepancy is much greater in that case.

They're either both guilty or both innocent, because they did exactly the same thing, ostensibly for exactly the same reason.

I don't even care which way you go, but if you want to argue that one is guilty and the other is innocent, and you don't want anyone to think you're a racist, you need a pretty good explanation.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What do you mean? The basic facts are not even in dispute. Zimmerman stalked and killed somebody. He confessed to the crime. His defense was that he was attacked and shot his attacker in self defense. It's identical to the other man's case, except that the black guy got convicted and the non-black guy didn't. Oh yeah, and the other difference is that the guy who got convicted was actually trying to walk away when he was attacked, and the age and weight discrepancy is much greater in that case.

They're either both guilty or both innocent, because they did exactly the same thing, ostensibly for exactly the same reason.

I don't even care which way you go, but if you want to argue that one is guilty and the other is innocent, and you don't want anyone to think you're a racist, you need a pretty good explanation.

I don't know what other case you're talking about, but I would reserve judgement until I reviewed all the evidence. The problem with most people is that they're itching for a controversy so they never look into the evidence or the facts of the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what other case you're talking about.....

Neither does she.

If one only looks at the races of the people involved (& buys into the CNN/NYT invention that Zimmerman is "white") in these 2 cases, & ignores the merits of the cases, then one arrives at the convenient & simplistic view that US juries rule solely upon race.

Btw, Zimmerman seemed to have a close call. It took the jury 2 days to decide there was reasonable doubt that he was guilty. And word to the wise (regarding the other case)....Don't brandish a gun during an argument which results in your shooting & killing the other guy.

Neighbors who witnessed the altercation and later testified said they saw Dooley flip up his T-shirt, revealing a gun in his waistband, while cursing at James. Dooley, who is 5-feet-7 and weighs 160 pounds, said in his testimony that he shot the 6-foot-1, 240 pound James when he felt his life was in danger because James had his hands around Dooley’s neck and was trying to reach for his gun.
The Times also reported that along with manslaughter, Dooley was also convicted of improper exhibition of a weapon and open carrying of a firearm, both misdemeanors.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Neither does she.

It was very impressive that she managed to link it for you then.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was very impressive that she managed to link it for you then.

Tis easy to provide links, although links alone do not an argument make. But
reading & interpreting the info therein, & then putting it in a cogent argument
is another matter indeed.

If Zimmerman had behaved as did her black self-defender, ie, brandishing his gun
in front of witnesses before the altercation became deadly, he'd very likely be in
the hoosegow for a long time, despite his newly found privileged semi-white status.

 

[Poisonshady313]

They're either both guilty or both innocent, because they did exactly the same thing, ostensibly for exactly the same reason.

There's not nearly enough information provided in that article for the rest of us to just simply nod our heads and say "yeah, that's right".