George Zimmerman verdict thread
Options
Comments
-
Cont.
Now about juries and racism. Yes, I’m aware that nobody can be a robot. And we all have our biases and prejudices. It’s certainly possible that the jury members were racist and that they used this racism to acquit Zimmerman, and many people believe this. My only question is where is the hard evidence? We can deliberate, but I just like to see claims backed by hard evidence. It’s nothing personal. I just want to be able to identify the truth in something. Furthermore, we must also remember that the system says that all jurors have to agree on a verdict, so according to the aforementioned people, would that mean that all the jurors (even the non-white one) were racially motivated to acquit Zimmerman? And let’s not also forget the other important factors such as the incompetence of the prosecution team and the inherent difficulty in proving someone guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. So with all of this said, I think that those who believe that the jury was racist and consequentially acquitted Zimmerman have a significant burden of proof. So, where is the proof?
If what you said about the Sanford Police Department is all true, then that’s definitely important and a shame. The whole department needs to be audited, if not charged with an appropriate crime. It’s clear that the police were incompetent, but here’s my question: Were they incompetent because Martin was black (even though apparently there were cases of incompetence that involved non-blacks and whites and even though I can agree with you that things would be different if Martin was a white teenager instead), or were they incompetent because they were all-around ? ?
I think a more important point is that there are more than likely many other Sanford Police Departments in this world, and that is a very big and dangerous problem. I think that all of our police departments need to be re-evaluated for signs of incompetence, corruption, racism, etc. But if the Sanford Police Department was indeed racist, then I can clearly see Martin as a symbol of racism against blacks. But still, what I find a lot more unclear and complicated is how the Zimmerman verdict was supposed to be entirely racist. -
desertrain10 wrote: »its a disgrace how we treat poor people of every race ....but its no coincidence that blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, and to be in deep poverty, or that black unemployment rate is double that of whites
that didn't "just happen" ...that's the result of slavery, jim crow, institutionalized racism, government policies, etc
bruh
Mostly agreed.desertrain10 wrote: »therefore classism will never reach the ranks of racism....well as long as things remain the same ( i.e. government policy, racial attitudes of the ruling group, etc)
I don’t know man.
Who do the drug laws hurt the most? Poorer people of all races, including poorer blacks (but not rich blacks).
Who do our courts ? over the most? Poorer people of all races, but men and blacks do get ? over the most.
Who gets the least amount of coverage on the news? Poorer people of all races. For example, why don’t we hear more about the gang wars that involve poorer blacks and Hispanics and even those crazy ass white biker gangs and even those racist ass ? ? since race is supposed to be such a big deal?
Who is the least likely to become President of the United States? Poorer men and women of all races. Obama and Mark Rubio certainly aren’t like the rest of us. Neither is Sarah Palin, and she’s an airhead!
Who is more likely to go through an incompetent educational system? Poorer people of all races. More wealthy blacks can afford the best and private education for their children.
Who is less likely to get a decent job? Poorer people of all races, but women and blacks indeed get ? over the most.
And then factor in the fact that the middle class is shrinking and getting poorer. A lot of whites make up the middle class, so they’re in the same boat, no? Even though they DO NOT experience the harsh racism that blacks experience everday.
I’m not necessarily trying to argue that classism/elitism is a bigger deal than racism. I just think that people downplay it (as well as sexism and other important factors) and the fact that classism/elitism sometimes includes racism since many people of color are not upper class. -
desertrain10 wrote: »and from where im sitting there are a lot of blacks and black lead organizations fighting for the poor and rallying for affordable housing, healthcare, decent wages, etc
Agreed, and that’s a great thing. MLK would be proud. He died just for that reason – helping the poorer (not just black) folk.desertrain10 wrote: »i really don't see how blacks have used race to divide an conquer among themselves and other people of color as to where is has become detriment
I don’t think that I explained myself clearly. What I meant was that poorer people (regardless of their race) divide and conquer exclusively (so not including richer people) among themselves, but they’re all in the same boat, so it’s pointless, stupid, and very counter-productive but very productive for the “elites.”
So have we divided ourselves? Sure, I think that we can both agree.
Poorer Africans vs. Poorer African-Americans.
Poorer Light-skinned vs Poorer Dark-skinned.
Poorer Democrats vs. Poorer Republicans.
Poorer Heterosexuals/Religious vs. Poorer Homosexuals.
Poorer Young vs. Poorer Old.
Poorer Gang A vs. Poorer Gang B.
Poorer Ideology A vs. Poorer Ideology B (e.g., back in the day, the FBI secretly fed false information to get the US Organization and Black Panthers to fight and ? each other even though both organizations were both black nationalists fighting the elites).
I can only think of religion when it comes to poorer blacks actually getting along and not fighting against each other regardless of whatever religion or lack thereof.
And have poorer blacks divided among other people of color who are also poorer? Yes.
Black vs. Hispanic (which is a damn shame imo especially since some of my closest homies are Hispanic)
Black vs. Asian (which is very complicated imo)
Black vs. Italian (We’ve all watched Do the Right Thing, right?), etc.
When poor blacks riot, who do they go after? Their non-black poor neighbors and their stores. But they never go after rich, white people (not saying that they should). They end up killing each other. People of color should stand together, and that’s exactly what the elite does not want happening.
Now, the essential question – Have these divisions been detrimental? That’s where it gets complicated imo. I say yes. For example, the Black vs. Mexican gang war in Southern California in prisons and on the outside. We ? each other, and the elite benefit. -
So now the LONE woman of color on this ? jury now says that "Zimmerman got away with murder".
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/07/lone_juror_of_color_zimmerman_got_away_with_murder.htmlkingblaze84 wrote: »So now the LONE woman of color on this ? jury now says that "Zimmerman got away with murder".
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/07/lone_juror_of_color_zimmerman_got_away_with_murder.html
I wish that ? juror would have not caved in to what the other jurors wanted. If she really felt Zimmerman got away with murder, why the hell did she side with the defense of Zimmerman? The prosecution did not put on the greatest case but I thought it was very clear Zimmerman was the aggressor......smh at that chick NOW trying to save face. She gets no respect from me.
Finally! It seems that the same people who criticized the 5/6 jury are now criticizing the 1/6. I was wondering why she was getting a pass all this time.
I think that she, as all of us, wanted to see Zimmerman pay for something, but I agree with joshuaboy. Her hands were tied man. Maybe we need a new law that specifically outlaws the kind of vigilantism that Zimmerman did so that prosecutors and juries can more painlessly convict people like Zimmerman? -
desertrain10 wrote: »According to a comprehensive report released by Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama-based criminal civil rights organization, African Americans are consistently excluded from jury service in jurisdictions throughout the South. The numbers are staggering in some southern counties. For example, according to the report, between 2005 and 2009, 80 percent of eligible African Americans were removed from jury service in Houston County, Alab., where the population is 27 percent African-American.
The culprits here are prosecutors, and their use of peremptory challenges, which allow them to remove a certain number potential jurors for any reason at all. In too many instances, prosecutors use peremptory strikes to target African Americans, especially in homicide cases involving black defendants. In one judicial circuit in Georgia, prosecutors used 83 percent of their peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from juries.
http://www.theroot.com/category/views-tags/racist-jury-selection
Even CNN have done a lot of stories on racial biases and in the jury selection process ....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/lyon.racial.jury.selection/index.html
i agree with so of you points, but again you're downplaying the role of race and ignoring the impropriety of racial bias in this case and our legal system
unfortunately racism has and continue to pervades every facet of american society including our criminal-justice system...and how could it not considering our country's history
so it did manner it was practically an all white jury
with that said i'm not saying the that zimmerman/jurors were all racist
just recognizing the fact that EVERYONE including state legislators, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, defendants, AND even jurors carry with them their own racial attitudes and prejudices where ever they go... the assumptions zimmerman made about trayvon that night these jurors could have shared the same sentiments
realize jurors are not just these non biased listeners, waiting until all available evidence was presented before attempting a rational process of deliberation... they aren't robots, they don't live in a vacuum and that is not how human decision making goes. in reality jurors are influenced by a variety of biases, not all of which are conscious....
biases can also impact jury deliberations. in theory, juries are used by our court system because we believe polling individuals’ on a topic will generate a less biased assessment of the evidence presented and leads to less error.... jurors are not “blank slates,” however. they come to trial with beliefs and knowledge that influences their decision making implicitly...for instance, individuals’ knowledge of a cultural stereotype of black individuals as aggressive and dangerous could influence jurors’ perceptions of blacks as more violent or aggressive ...in addition, attitudes of one juror can often influence other jurors’ attitudes
HOWEVER while i believe race played a role in the verdict, i more so feel that the prosecution did a bad job in presenting their case mainly because then the sanford pd would've had to answer to the public as to why they didn't arrest zimmerman in the first place and conducted such a flimsy investigation
just think...
sanford pd broke protocol and didn't test the killer for alcohol or drugs....yet they tested trayvon
they didn't use the victim's cell phone to reach relatives, and instead identified him as "john doe" for 3 days
they didn't EVEN interview the person to whom the victim was having a cell phone conversation moments before his murder
crime scene investigators didn't properly bag trayvon's hands and clothes
smh....
maybe it was mere incompetency but that's a lot of missteps. and considering sanford's and their police department's sordid legacy its not a complete reach or an emotional response when people make the claim that zimmerman would have differently had he killed a white teenager. in recent years sanford pd has been plagued by numerous allegations of racial injustice, and a series of public missteps. in 2006 a security guard and one of the sons of a sanford police officer killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. even though he admitted to never identifying himself, he was released without charges....
Great post. Your respect and your evidence are highly appreciated. You’ve definitely seemed to solve some of the uncertainties that I’ve had about this ordeal, but since you seem to know a lot more than me about some of this, so I also have a few questions.
I think that the heart of this debate is whether or not the Zimmerman verdict was racist or not. You seem to say that race played a role, but other factors played a more important role. This is basically my opinion, so we might be in a general agreement here. But you did also seem to say that you think that the prosecution team took a dive to protect the Sandford police department? If so, could you explain?
Your evidence on racial discrimination in jury duty selection is certainly eye-opening, and I will definitely do some follow up research on that. I was ignorant in that regard (though I wonder what your opinion is on joshuaboy's claim that O.J. had a predominantly black jury). But don’t get me wrong. I’m aware that our system is flawed and racist (as well as elitist and sexist, which are apparently less popular concerns, which is part of my discontent). I just don’t think that the racist hammer didn’t fall as much as a lot of people think it did in this ordeal and especially in the verdict. But again, I do realize that racism did play a factor, so I might just be splitting hairs. It just irks me when people equate Martin to Emmett Till.
About the prosecution protecting sandford pd....I just feel as though its more than possible considering all the missteps i listed in a previous post they made before, during the trial, and its political considering the fact that they have to work closely together in the future
I dont how the racial composition of the jury that declared oj not guilty in the murder his wife and friend is of relevance considering that the jury was mostly black which is a rariety in most homicide cases in most places around the country....
-
desertrain10 wrote: »and from where im sitting there are a lot of blacks and black lead organizations fighting for the poor and rallying for affordable housing, healthcare, decent wages, etc
Agreed, and that’s a great thing. MLK would be proud. He died just for that reason – helping the poorer (not just black) folk.desertrain10 wrote: »i really don't see how blacks have used race to divide an conquer among themselves and other people of color as to where is has become detriment
I don’t think that I explained myself clearly. What I meant was that poorer people (regardless of their race) divide and conquer exclusively (so not including richer people) among themselves, but they’re all in the same boat, so it’s pointless, stupid, and very counter-productive but very productive for the “elites.”
So have we divided ourselves? Sure, I think that we can both agree.
Poorer Africans vs. Poorer African-Americans.
Poorer Light-skinned vs Poorer Dark-skinned.
Poorer Democrats vs. Poorer Republicans.
Poorer Heterosexuals/Religious vs. Poorer Homosexuals.
Poorer Young vs. Poorer Old.
Poorer Gang A vs. Poorer Gang B.
Poorer Ideology A vs. Poorer Ideology B (e.g., back in the day, the FBI secretly fed false information to get the US Organization and Black Panthers to fight and ? each other even though both organizations were both black nationalists fighting the elites).
I can only think of religion when it comes to poorer blacks actually getting along and not fighting against each other regardless of whatever religion or lack thereof.
And have poorer blacks divided among other people of color who are also poorer? Yes.
Black vs. Hispanic (which is a damn shame imo especially since some of my closest homies are Hispanic)
Black vs. Asian (which is very complicated imo)
Black vs. Italian (We’ve all watched Do the Right Thing, right?), etc.
When poor blacks riot, who do they go after? Their non-black poor neighbors and their stores. But they never go after rich, white people (not saying that they should). They end up killing each other. People of color should stand together, and that’s exactly what the elite does not want happening.
Now, the essential question – Have these divisions been detrimental? That’s where it gets complicated imo. I say yes. For example, the Black vs. Mexican gang war in Southern California in prisons and on the outside. We ? each other, and the elite benefit.
Your right.....homophobia, classism, racism, sexism goes hand in hand
Therefore we all would be better served to put aside our differences and unite for a common goal
But first imho we have to address the root, sources of these divisions or they are destined to linger
I.e. white supremacy, patriarchy, etc
Also whites poor, working class have to do some serious soul searching...the ruling class i.e. law makers, political pudits/strategist has long used whites fear, hatred of blacks and foreigners as a means to get them to vote against their economic interest
-
I hate how people are comparing being a white Hispanic to being a White Black. Oddly enough it seems to be all White people, who I am confident have no idea about the racial segregation in Spanish speaking countries.
-
We need to start building up our communities into a organized unit. This ? wouldn't happen if we were respected as black people in this country and throughout the world. The glory of the black man and black women has been been forgotten and written out of history, so we appear to be thugs and animals in this white washed world. But in reality, we started civilization itself. This time of oppression and white supremacy is just another era in history, it will past as all things do. That time is now!
-
I was always under the impression that the Zimmerman/Martin case was a tool used to distract the masses from our current administration's involvement in international drone wars, and the Western/British/Israeli expansionist plots in Syria/Middle East. Apparently, it worked, however brief.
-
No_Way_Jose wrote: »I was always under the impression that the Zimmerman/Martin case was a tool used to distract the masses from our current administration's involvement in international drone wars, and the Western/British/Israeli expansionist plots in Syria/Middle East. Apparently, it worked, however brief.
? your ? self sadly these idiotic assertions are shared by many -
redundancy ahoyNo_Way_Jose wrote: »I was always under the impression that the Zimmerman/Martin case was a tool used to distract the masses from our current administration's involvement in international drone wars, and the Western/British/Israeli expansionist plots- -
conspiracies? really?
-
just wanna give GZ a big ? YOUR LIFE
-
Shellie Zimmerman: Indicates George Zimmerman Lied About Mentoring Kids The Night He Killed Trayvon
by cc Aug 29, 2013 10:56am PDT
In an interview with Christi O’Connor, Shellie Zimmerman said that she and George got into a fight Saturday night, the night before he killed Trayvon Martin, and that she left him and was staying at her father's house. Shellie Zimmerman said she was still staying with her father on Sunday - the night of the killing of Trayvon Martin.
That means George's dad, Robert Zimmerman Sr. lied when he was under oath and told the State Attorney that George had cooked Shellie dinner that night.
Time stamp 1:39
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN Sr.: George had cooked dinner for him and his wife and was going to the store. He goes to the store the same time every week.
~ Robert Zimmerman Sr, George Zimmerman's dad, while under oath
If Robert Zimmerman is going to lie about George cooking dinner for Shellie that night, when she had moved out the night before, I do not believe him when he also swore under oath that it was George Zimmerman's voice screaming for help ... I don't believe it. So far all I've garnered from the George Zimmerman family is that they are pathological liars who enable their sociopathic son so much so that he killed an unarmed teenager.
Since there was none of George's DNA on Trayvon Martin's hands, fingers or sleeves, (see my previous diaries), I always wondered if Shellie had caused those "injuries" on George's head sometime before he found Trayvon ... now ... that I know Shellie and George had a fight so bad that she left home and moved in with her dad, I am beginning to believe she did cause those injuries to George's head on Saturday night.
This would mean, George Zimmerman lied when he told the police that he and Shellie mentored children at their home on Sunday afternoon before he did his weekly shopping at Target.
DETECTIVE SERINO: "He had made reference to mentoring children, specifically African America children."
Remember Zimmerman fans chanting George couldn't possibly have profiled Trayvon because Trayvon is black, after all, George mentors black kids.
Zimmerman also told Sean Hannity he and Shellie had been mentoring kids that night:
ZIMMERMAN: I was going to Target to do my weekly grocery shopping. Sunday nights was the only nights -- well, Sunday after we mentored the kids, we would always go grocery shopping and do our cooking for the week. So I wanted to go to Target and I headed out. And that's the last time I've been home.
George clearly lied as "we" did not "mentor" any kids that night because one of the "we" had moved out and was living with her father.
Shellie Zimmerman did not disclose what they argued about that led her to move out and stay with her father and she was never asked if she hit George in the head before she moved out. She also refused to answer if George has a temper.
OCONNOR: "Does George have a temper? How volatile did it get the evening before?"
SHELLIE ZIMMERMAN: "Not going to answer that,"
ABC News reports that Christie O’Connor is writing a book about Zimmerman's trial and hinted that there was evidence that was mishandled, saying that during the sensational trial, “there were so many untruths told.”
“What the jury never heard could have led to a different verdict,” she said.
Everything that George Zimmerman did, from the second he killed Trayvon Martin has seemed scripted and phoney to me. OMara's law firm even confirmed that they used public relation plan regarding George Zimmerman.
“We certainly would not have advised him to go to the factory that made the gun that he used to shoot Trayvon Martin through the heart,” Shawn Vincent, a spokesman for attorney Mark O’Mara, told Yahoo! News Friday afternoon. “That was not part of our public relations plan.”
This diary was updated to include Robert Zimmerman Sr. perjuring himself.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/29/1234780/-Did-Shellie-Zimmerman-Show-George-Zimmerman-Lied-About-Mentoring-Kids-The-Night-He-Killed-Trayvon -
The prosecution sucked. The witness testimony alleging that Zimmerman was on bottom and Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman could have been refuted with the ample psychology research which has shown witness testimony is never accurate or reliable because testimony is usually confabulated to coincide with the witness' schema.
-
trying too hard, manThe prosecution sucked. The witness testimony alleging that Zimmerman was on bottom and Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman could have been refuted with the ample psychology research which has shown witness testimony is never accurate or reliable because testimony is usually confabulated to coincide with the witness' schema.
-
trying too hard, manThe prosecution sucked. The witness testimony alleging that Zimmerman was on bottom and Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman could have been refuted with the ample psychology research which has shown witness testimony is never accurate or reliable because testimony is usually confabulated to coincide with the witness' schema.
Not at all. They could have asked the witness questions about other details of that night and soon as he confabulated one of those they could throw his whole testimony into question. -
might want to re-read your post again if you don't see what i was getting atNot at all. They could have asked the witness questions about other details of that night and soon as he confabulated one of those they could throw his whole testimony into question.
but more topically, note that you're declaring witness testimony you don't agree with as unquestionably tainted while likely not applying the same standard to witness testimony you do like. so...
-
This is not about whether or not I agree with the testimony, but rather whether or not I think the prosecution sucked.
By trying to hard do you mean it is unreasonable for one to expect the state to exert as much effort as the private attorney the defense hired? -
This is not about whether or not I agree with the testimony, but rather whether or not I think the prosecution sucked.
By trying to hard do you mean it is unreasonable for one to expect the state to exert as much effort as the private attorney the defense hired?
Then you lead to cries about the state overstepping like the MIT hacker case where the accused killed himself cause he was facing a few years even though there were a few pleas on the table. -
Overstepping? Because they employ more aggressive tactics when cross examining witnesses? I've never heard of this
-
Overstepping? Because they employ more aggressive tactics when cross examining witnesses? I've never heard of this
There is a balance with everything you do. They overstepped in the first place by charging Zimmerman incorrectly. The judge can step in if the lawyer is accused of badgering the witness. -
He wouldn't have to be overbearing or harassing in his cross examination. Witness testimony is consistently unreliable and if the prosecution had tried to show this in court they would have had a better case.
-
more this:By trying to hard do you mean it is unreasonable for one to expect the state to exert as much effort as the private attorney the defense hired?
"The witness testimony alleging that Zimmerman was on bottom and Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman could have been refuted with the ample psychology research which has shown witness testimony is never accurate or reliable because testimony is usually confabulated to coincide with the witness' schema."
if you don't get it, you don't get it.
also, i expect the prosecution to make an effort, but your argument is still essentially "witnesses are suspect" (or, i guess, "Witness testimony is consistently unreliable and if the prosecution had tried to show this in court they would have had a better case"). this is true, but it cuts both ways.
-
more this:By trying to hard do you mean it is unreasonable for one to expect the state to exert as much effort as the private attorney the defense hired?
"The witness testimony alleging that Zimmerman was on bottom and Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman could have been refuted with the ample psychology research which has shown witness testimony is never accurate or reliable because testimony is usually confabulated to coincide with the witness' schema."
if you don't get it, you don't get it.
also, i expect the prosecution to make an effort, but your argument is still essentially "witnesses are suspect" (or, i guess, "Witness testimony is consistently unreliable and if the prosecution had tried to show this in court they would have had a better case"). this is true, but it cuts both ways.
Seeing as the prosecution's star witness hurt their case cutting it both ways might not be so bad.
But how would having a professional take the stand and explain the unreliability of witness testimony, which you agree with, be trying too hard?
