I think this pretty much sums up what's going on here. The media puts asses in seats and gets ratings by having this kind of fodder to work with. They could giving a flying fuck about the fact that they are dividing people in a very negative way. In the end though, don't you have to ask the question as to what is the real point of all this? -Is it to take attention away from how bad the economy is here in America? -Is it to try to push through some new legislation for gun control or anything really? -Are they trying to foment civil unrest? -It's an election year, are they trying to stir up the base of one party or another? Seriously, what is the point? By doing this, we aren't moving closer to racial harmony or a better understanding of one, another.
He wasn't a felon. He was legally allowed to carry a gun. Period. If he hadn't had it on him that night, and the same altercation happened he might have wound up with a concussion and a bruised ego or he could have wound up with a fractured skull, or dead. Speculation.
Here's Jim Goad's take on it. I can tell all of the people saying that this is "racial profiling" that I have been harassed by neighborhood-watch busy-bodies and cops for doing nothing than walking through a nice neighborhood or legally parking my car, and there is no way that anyone would mistake me for anything other than a white male. EDIT: And I think hoodies look tacky as hell, just like beanies. That's why it pisses me off that Li'l Bandit likes to wear them.
No matter what happens, Trayvon Martin will still be dead, George Zimmerman will wish he were dead, and their families will never be healed. THAT is the real tragedy in all of this. Nancy Grace, shut the fuck up. Al Sharpton, shut the fuck up. George Zimmerman's estraged brother, shut the fuck up. All the race-bating idiots, mouth-breathers, war-mongerers, shut the fuck up. We should all just shut the fuck up, and I will, starting now.
Martin did see him. On the phone, Zimmerman says that Martin is looking at him, and then Martin takes off running. Maybe Martin was just looking in that direction and didn't notice Zimmerman, and then took of running because his legs felt inspired, but it seems very likely that Martin saw Zimmerman on the phone and correctly deduced that Zimmerman was calling the cops. Yes, no one would have been shot. Zimmerman may have been beaten much more severely though.
Two things we have come to find out so far: 1. Martin's High school reported Trayvon in possession of a "burglary tool" as well as being found in possession of a lot of female jewelry, for which Trayvon was questioned and he said did not belong to him. There was no explanation as to why he had it in his possession. 2. It has been reported that when Zimmerman saw Martin he was off the sidewalks, walking through the wet grass in the dark. Zimmerman doesn't know Martin's disposition at that time, as a matter of fact nobody ever will. Staying out of the light, walking through wet grass in a neighborhood your are visiting, close to the windows is rather strange behavior. I live down here and can tell you that if I were to see someone off the sidewalks, walking through peoples yard, I would immediately be suspicious of them regardless of their race. Assume Zimmerman wasn't there, there is no telling what Martin was doing at that time. If he was burglarizing homes or vehicles he may very have been shot anyway.
Here's the problem. Don't take this personally, but this paragraph is something white privilege enables you to say. That is, it's all great and wonderful to want people to not define themselves by their race, but if you're black (for example) your race and its implications are constantly in your face. When you are judged, your race is going to be given a lot more weight in whatever personal judgement is being made of you regardless of how you personally define yourself. I have the luxury of hardly ever having to consider how my whiteness impacts a particular situation. But due to racial sterotypes and prejudices, people of color don't.
And it's at that point that Zimmerman got out of his car and started following him, after being told he shouldn't, correct? Ignoring the suspicious lack of evidence that he was beaten at all, wouldn't that be better? If Martin really was up to no good, and really did confront Zimmerman without being provoked, and somehow managed to beat up a guy 30 pounds heavier than him, and got arrested and charged (seems like that's asking a lot for this particular police department, but whatever), wouldn't that be a better outcome than if either guy had a gun? I'll grant that Martin hypothetically, maybe, possibly, could have beaten Zimmerman to death, but I'll take that possibility over a gun any day, which is pretty much a death guarantee. This is my point about Americans and guns. As much as I love going to the U.S., and have liked pretty much every American I've ever met, almost all of you seem to have this ingrained idea that everyone having incredibly easy access to firearms is just no big deal. The rest of the Western world doesn't share that view, and it's one of the few distinct contrasts between us and you. My parents live in a gated community with a neighbourhood watch, including people driving around in cars. Their entire role is to monitor. Their only weapon is a cell phone. I'd be shocked if any of them would get out of their car if they suspected someone of doing anything more than loitering, and if they carried a gun, they would be kicked off the neighbourhood watch team. I suspect this sounds absurd to many of you, and that's my point.
Well if there's going to a national discussion on race, then it should be had. But not a bullshit one to placate people until the next Rodney King or Trayvon Martin. The fact of the matter is, there are vicious, evil racists in this country. There's no doubt about it. Unfortunately, these people are so far gone from logic, reason, and compassion, that its impossible to bring them back. But another issue needs to be addressed as well. And in a meta degree (Trayvon Martin case aside), each group and culture really needs to examine themselves, because like it or not, perception is reality. Each subculture or race is only going to be perceived by the general public in whatever way you let them. The blacks don't want to be thought of as gang members? Stop glorifying gangsta rap and that subculture. Southerners don't want to be thought of as rednecks? Stop pushing out Larry the Cable Guy and Blue Collar Comedy Tour bullshit. Because if that's the image and it's rewarded, why would you be perceived as anything else? Smart people can separate and understand the difference. Society is stupid, emotional, and reactionary and can't, especially with a sensationalist media that won't. Unfortunately this won't be discussed at large because it's easier to pretend its prejudice and racism from outside than problems existing innately.
Americans have been a rebellious band of freedom loving vagabonds from the very beginning. Our freedom from the crown and tyranny would not exist had it not been for the gun. That's a tradition we like to hold on to. The same can't be said for the rest of you 'Subjects of the Queen'.
This is obviously a personal and charged issue for me. Setting aside the incendiary case for a second, let me give you a couple innocuous examples of how just "ignoring the race thing", isn't always an option. I like to eat out at restaurant, on occasion. Or drink at bars. And from what people in the service industry have told me, there's a perception that black people don't tip very well. Not always, or even often, but sometimes, I imagine this leads to me not getting the same level of service as somebody who is perceived as a big tipper -- it's both human nature and the nature of the job. In these situations, I'm left with two unsavory options: I can tip poorly, commensurate with the service, and worry for the rest of the day that I reinforced a stereotype and made it harder for the next black person OR I can tip well for what is not very good service. I imagine that somebody who is seen as "generic" in society doesn't have that issue. Let's get a little real for a second, before we pat ourselves on the back as a board too much: when a board member calls an athlete a "thug nigger", it's a lot harder for me to simply say, "oh, well aside from that, he's a great guy." If you can read that sort of thing, and it doesn't immediately flood your mind with associations, and cause you to reconsider everything that person says, you might not understand.
What? Why even include this? If that had happened, this wouldn't be the discussion. It would be "dumb motherfucker gets shot while burglarizing Florida gated community." That's not what happened. Why does it matter in this instance even if he does have that background? Zimmerman didn't know it, the dispatchers didn't know it, and it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't burglarizing anything when he was shot. This isn't Minority Report, and I don't think there's any basis for "he may have had an alleged history of stealing things so Zimmerman had a right to be following him in the dark despite being explicitly told to sit tight and wait for the police, and shooting him seems okay because he was a criminal anyway right." And how are people on this board seriously advocating the notion that Martin could have doubled back to ambush Zimmerman in his car? Are we kidding? Did he bust out the windows and drag out an armed man to savagely beat him? Were the doors just unlocked? How did Trayvon even get in melee range of a man with a car and a firearm? If he wasn't gonna just sit in his car, did he not draw the gun to go explore? Would he not make it obvious, at some point before he was locked in mortal hand to hand combat, that he was carrying superior firepower? Do we think Trayvon was like "fuck it I'm bulletproof I'm gonna kill this honkey for following me!" Maybe he was carrying concealed, but given what we do know about his gung-ho supercop proclivities, do we actually, honestly think that's likely? I get the "we can never really know the facts" skepticism here, but come on. Was Zimmerman carrying concealed but in such a way that he could draw and fire his gun while getting his ass kicked and his head slammed into the ground? I don't have a lot of experience in situations like that but it strikes me as a bit unlikely... I just don't understand how or why Trayvon could possibly have escalated this confrontation when there's no reason (from Zimmerman's standpoint too) that he couldn't have seen that Zimmerman was armed.
So let me get this straight, your parents are pussies? Anytime someone gets killed with any weapon that isn't a gun, I'm going to start creating threads to debate whether or not that weapon should be illegal. Why do you need knives? In other parts of the world they just pick things up and tear them with their mouths. If everyone had their hands cut off there would be no more beatings or stranglings. If only everything dangerous in this world could be eliminated.
So you have a neighborhood watch to protect people... but the only thing they'll protect you from is harmless loitering? Oh, and I guess they'll call the cops so after I've been robbed and/or killed they'll be able to write a timely police report. I feel safer already!
The point is, it is as relevant as talking about Martin being alive if Zimmerman didn't have a gun. Pretty simple.
No offense taken. I'm aware on a basic level of recognition, although not personal experience (clearly) that such judgment does exist and cause problems, although it's something I rarely give thought to, which is a failure on my part. However, this reinforces the point that it's an overarching issue that everyone needs to work together to fix. The racial identity wouldn't be such an issue if the racial profiling and judgment didn't exist. Unfortunately, tolerance is easier said than done.
Very true. And as we all know, holding onto hundreds-of-years-old traditions NEVER yields bad results. Your country was also largely built on the "tradition" of slavery -- how's that working for you? Any lasting issues there? Thanks for exemplifying my point. A main focus of any neighbourhood WATCH is to WATCH for suspicious activity. Obviousy the police can't be everywhere, so these people WATCH for certain things that seem askew, then call the police, as a kind of pre-emptive 911 call. That's all, and the reason that's all is because if you let pretty much everyone carry guns, those guns will eventually go off, and guns going off rarely end in bringing someone back to life. You, along with Zimmerman, believe that it is the duty of these neighbourhood WATCH workers to actively protect, and have no problem with un-trained, non-police vigilante wannabes carrying loaded guns. Almost entirely, as lhprop1 stated, because of a "tradition" started by people who had no problem owning slaves. And you all legit think I'm an idiot for thinking something is wrong with this. Go look back at one of my first links. America is behind only South Africa, Colombia and Thailand for murders with firearms. Shit, even fucking Mexico trails you by 7,000. The next closest fully advanced country is Germany, and they have a fraction of your total. A high profile shooting happens, and you guys bring up race, the media, grainy videos, speculation, the stand your ground law...but the one thing that's off limits is even the POSSIBILITY that easy gun access played a role in the shooting of an un-armed teenager? God forbid the country with the fourth most firearm murders IN THE WORLD, and the only modern country to break triple digits (by a lot), should consider gun law reform. Clearly that argument has no relevance here whatsoever. If it was good enough for the racist founding fathers, it's good enough fer us!