Trayvon Martin

[seemslikeadream]

[Freitag]

The prosecution didn't prove their case. It was the right decision.

This trial was an illustration of institutional racism and white supremacy. An innocent child was intentionally murdered and the killer is free.

The facts do not support that assertion. I know many people would like for the trial to have been an example of institutional racism and white supremacy, but it was not.

[seemslikeadream]

An innocent child was intentionally murdered and the killer is free.


ABSOLUTE TRUTH

[beeline]

“Not guilty” is not the same as “He’s innocent.” All “not guilty” means is, “The prosecutor made a claim and then didn’t convince us beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.” In a criminal trial in the U.S., there is no option for the jury to say “That person is innocent.” The best a defendant can hope for is what George Zimmerman just just got: he was accused, but they didn’t prove it.

This. I really do not believe for one minute GZ is 'innocent,' but the prosecution did a lousy job of presenting evidence for a conviction upon 2nd degree, or even manslaughter.

[seemslikeadream]

[American Dream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/15/ ... on-martin/

The US v. Trayvon Martin

by ROBIN D.G. KELLEY

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Senator Rand Paul, Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley (also sponsor of his state’s Stand Your Ground law), along with a host of other Republicans, argued that had the teachers and administrators been armed, those twenty little kids whose lives Adam Lanza stole would be alive today. Of course, they were parroting the National Rifle Association’s talking points. The NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative lobbying group responsible for drafting and pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws across the country, insist that an armed citizenry is the only effective defense against imminent threats, assailants, and predators.

But when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, teenage pedestrian returning home one rainy February evening from a neighborhood convenience store, the NRA went mute. Neither NRA officials nor the pro-gun wing of the Republican Party argued that had Trayvon Martin been armed, he would be alive today. The basic facts are indisputable: Martin was on his way home when Zimmerman began to follow him—first in his SUV, and then on foot. Zimmerman told the police he had been following this “suspicious-looking” young man. Martin knew he was being followed and told his friend, Rachel Jeantel, that the man might be some kind of sexual predator. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other, a fight ensued, and in the struggle Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. This is a fact. Martin could have run, I suppose, but every black man knows that unless you’re on a field, a track, or a basketball court, running is suspicious and could get you a bullet in the back. The other option was to ask this stranger what he was doing, but confrontations can also be dangerous—especially without witnesses and without a weapon besides a cel phone and his fists. Florida law did not require Martin to retreat, though it is not clear if he had tried to retreat. He did know he was in imminent danger.

Where was the NRA on Trayvon Martin’s right to stand his ground? What happened to their principled position? Let’s be clear: the Trayvon Martin’s of the world never had that right because the “ground” was never considered theirs to stand on. Unless black people could magically produce some official documentation proving that they are not burglars, rapists, drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes, intruders, they are assumed to be “up to no good.” (In the antebellum period, such documentation was called “freedom papers.”) As Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s executive vice president, succinctly explained their
position, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Trayvon Martin was a bad guy or at least looked and acted like one. In our allegedly postracial moment, where simply talking about racism openly is considered an impolitic, if not racist, thing to do, we constantly learn and re-learn racial codes. The world knows black men are criminal, that they populate our jails and prisons, that they kill each other over trinkets, that even the celebrities among us are up to no good. Zimmerman’s racial profiling was therefore justified, and the defense consistently employed racial stereotypes and played on racial knowledge to turn the victim into the predator and the predator into the victim. In short, it was Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman, who was put on trial. He was tried for the crimes he may have committed and the ones he would have committed had he lived past 17. He was tried for using lethal force against Zimmerman in the form of a sidewalk and his natural athleticism.

The successful transformation of Zimmerman into the victim of black predatory violence was evident not only in the verdict but in the stunning Orwellian language defense lawyers Mark O’Mara and Don West employed in the post-verdict interview. West was incensed that anyone would have the audacity to even bring the case to trial—suggesting that no one needs to be held accountable for the killing of an unarmed teenager. When O’Mara was asked if he thought the verdict might have been different if his client had been black, he replied: “Things would have been different for George Zimmerman if he was black for this reason: he would never have been charged with a crime.” In other words, black men can go around killing indiscriminately with no fear of prosecution because there are no Civil Rights organizations pressing to hold them accountable.

And yet, it would be a mistake to place the verdict at the feet of the defense for its unscrupulous use of race, or to blame the prosecution for avoiding race, or the jury for insensitivity, or even the gun lobby for creating the conditions that have made the murder of young black men justifiable homicide. The verdict did not surprise me, or most people I know, because we’ve been here before. We were here with Latasha Harlins and Rodney King, with Eleanor Bumpurs and Michael Stewart. We were here with Anthony Baez, Michael Wayne Clark, Julio Nunez, Maria Rivas, Mohammed Assassa. We were here with Amadou Diallo, the Central Park Five, Oscar Grant, Stanley “Rock” Scott, Donnell “Bo” Lucas, Tommy Yates. We were here with Angel Castro, Jr. Bilal Ashraf, Anthony Starks, Johnny Gammage, Malice Green, Darlene Tiller, Alvin Barroso, Marcillus Miller, Brenda Forester. We’ve been here before with Eliberto Saldana, Elzie Coleman, Tracy Mayberry, De Andre Harrison, Sonji Taylor, Baraka Hall, Sean Bell, Tyisha Miller, Devon Nelson, LaTanya Haggerty, Prince Jamel Galvin, Robin Taneisha Williams, Melvin Cox, Rudolph Bell, Sheron Jackson. And Jordan Davis, killed in Jacksonville, Florida, not long after Trayvon Martin. His murderer, Michael Dunn, emptied his gun into the parked SUV where Davis and three friends sat because they refused to turn down their music. Dunn is invoking “stand your ground” in his defense.

The list is long and deep. In 2012 alone, police officers, security guards or vigilantes took the lives of 136 unarmed black men and women—at least twenty-five of whom were killed by vigilantes. In ten of the incidents, the killers were not charged with a crime, and most of those who were charged either escaped conviction or accepted reduced charges in exchange for a guilty plea. And I haven’t included the reign of terror that produced at least 5,000 legal lynchings in the United States, or the numerous assassinations—from political activists to four black girls attending Sunday school in Birmingham fifty years ago.

The point is that justice was always going to elude Trayvon Martin, not because the system failed, but because it worked. Martin died and Zimmerman walked because our entire political and legal foundations were built on an ideology of settler colonialism—an ideology in which the protection of white property rights was always sacrosanct; predators and threats to those privileges were almost always black, brown, and red; and where the very purpose of police power was to discipline, monitor, and contain populations rendered a threat to white property and privilege. This has been the legal standard for African Americans and other racialized groups in the U.S. long before ALEC or the NRA came into being. We were rendered property in slavery, and a threat to property in freedom. And during the brief moment in the 1860s and ‘70s, when former slaves participated in democracy, held political offices, and insisted on the rights of citizenship, it was a well-armed (white) citizenry that overthrew democratically-elected governments in the South, assassinated black political leaders, stripped African-Americans of virtually all citizenship rights (the franchise, the right of habeas corpus, right of free speech and assembly, etc.), and turned an entire people into predators. (For evidence, read the crime pages of any urban newspaper during the early 20th century. Or just watch the hot new show, “Orange is the New Black.”)

If we do not come to terms with this history, we will continue to believe that the system just needs to be tweaked, or that the fault lies with a fanatical gun culture or a wacky right-wing fringe. We will miss the routine character of such murders: according data compiled by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, a black person is killed by the state or by state-sanctioned violence every 28 hours. And we will miss how this history of routine violence has become a central component of the U.S. drone warfare and targeted killing. What are signature strikes if not routine, justified killings of young men who might be Al-caeda members or may one day commit acts of terrorism? It is little more than a form of high-tech racial profiling.

In the end, we should be able to prevent another Sandy Hook school tragedy—and the $7.7 million dollars that poured into Newtown on behalf of the victims suggests a real will to do all we can to protect the innocent. But, sadly, the trial of Travyon Martin reminds us, once again, that our black and brown children must prove their innocence every day. We cannot change the situation by simply finding the right legal strategy. Unless we challenge the entire criminal justice system and mass incarceration, there will be many more Trayvon Martins and a constant dread that one of our children might be next. As long as we continue to uphold and defend a system designed to protect white privilege, property and personhood, and render black and brown people predators, criminals, illegals, and terrorists, we will continue to attend funerals and rallies; watch in stunned silence as another police officer or vigilante is acquitted after taking another young life; allow our government to kill civilians in our name; and inherit a society in which our prisons and jails become the largest, most diverse institutions in the country.


Robin D. G. Kelley, who teaches at UCLA, is the author of the remarkable biography Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of an American Original (2009) and most recently Africa Speaks, America Answers: Modern Jazz in Revolutionary Times (2012).

[parel]

Doesn't really matter if it was the cops or the scientists or the journalists or the lawyers who fucked up.

[Hunter]

Some people say it was the right decision because they wanted GZ to get off, some people say it was the wrong decision because they wanted GZ to be found guilty. Do not confuse me with either of those people.


When I say it was the right decision I am speaking from a LEGAL STANDPOINT THE STATE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN, I am not saying it was the right decision that GZ got off and that I am happy about that, I am saying AS A MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL LAW the state did not meet their burden and therefore as a matter of law the Jury made the right decision.

Now if you were to ask me my PERSONAL OPINION ON THE MATTER, I would tell you that I personally think GZ was an irresponsible gun owner who had no business bothering TM and it was GZ's busy body nosy wanna be cop attitude that got the kid killed. That is my personal opinion but that is completely different from the law and the burden the state has to meet which they did not meet and therefore as a matter of law, the jury was right.


Thats all I have to say about that.

[American Dream]

Thank you for teaching me about crimes that don't break any laws...


I LOVE America!!!

I LOVE AMERICA

I love America
I can't help myself
I love America
I don't want to know
What if I love America too much
I have to believe I love America

The government is here inside me now.
The government invades my dreams with telepathy, sorcery, world war harmony.
But I am unafraid.
Is it the president?
President God in person?
Maybe it's the Vice President of Bloody Alphabets.
Or the Secretary of Rosicrucian Coca-Cola.
Their totalitarian love spells purify my sleeptalk, and I am very glad for all they've forced me to learn about crimes that don't break any laws.
The government bestows my beautiful nightmares, and I am unafraid.

I love America
I can't stop now
I love America
I am afraid to find out
What if I love America too much
I want to believe I love America

I dreamed I was with drunken marines in Baghdad chanting "God is love, God is oil."
We rode the roller coaster at the brand new Disneyland and blew up terrorist cartoons with toy bombs made of depleted uranium.
I laughed. I cried. I saved 50 bucks on my next purchase.
My sleep grew deeper and darker, slower and warmer.
I dreamed that I dreamed I had sex by accident with an insatiable CIA priestess.
She made me promise to poison all the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Tehran, then led me straight to the Garden of Eden, which was more relaxing than I ever imagined.
It was a rock and roll paradise where celebrity journalists sang patriotic songs that cleansed my conscience every time another millionaire seized control of America's hearts and minds.
And I got in the mood to give the huddled masses of Afghanistan some cashmere bathrobes and Prozac and magic doughnuts.
I opened up my Bible and turned to the part where born-again Christians in the Pentagon molest the unborn children of Mexican immigrants.

I love America
If it's a crime to say
I love America
I confess I am guilty
I love America too much
I love America to death

I am not afraid.
My nightmares are not just nightmares.
They're purifications.
They're love spells.
They're exorcisms that will eventually mean the opposite of what they seem to mean.
And everything is fine.
Everything is mysterious.

My nightmares predict the amazing death of the apocalypse in America.

I am not afraid

My nightmares predict a whirlwind of sublime chaos and exhilarating confusion that will explode in a conflagration of contagious compassion and liberate us from our self-inflicted suffering.

I am not afraid

My nightmares predict the invention of American supercomputers that will collaborate with the real God to overthrow the fake God.
My nightmares predict healing disasters of genetic engineering that will remove all germs from all money forever, giving rise to a generation of the greatest spiritual businessmen in history.
My nightmares predict that telepathic divas and rebel housewives at the edge of time will out-smart the Chinese dragon single-handedly, making the world safe for multinational narcissism dealers to become sacred advertisers of love and peace forever and a day.


I love America
I love America
I love America
I love America
I love America
I love America
I love America
I love America


+



Credits:
Composer and producer: Rob Brezsny
Lead vocals: Rob Brezsny
Back-up Vocals: Adrienne Shamszad
Guitar, bass, production assistance: Josh Brill

.

[Luther Blissett]

In that case, the state was wrong, and the prosecution was wrong. The jury sat in judgement of the wrong human being.

That equals institutional racism.

[Hunter]

This was the right decision … Hopefully, people can respect the verdict and no riots occur.

You have repeated this or something like it often in your posts on this thread. Should I assume that the Marissa Alexander decision is right as well? I barely have time for people who so much as raise an eyebrow to rationalize the murder of a child.

The saddest part about this thing is all the racism that is coming from the side of TM

This is a fantasy.

Maybe the reason you misunderstand the difference between what I know about the LAW and what my PERSONAL OPINION IS, is because you "barely have time" to actually read what someone is saying and instead take of all the 5 seconds youre willing to give to draw your conclusions and make your judgments about people.


There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between what a person might think about a case PERSONALLY and what that same person understands ABOUT THE LAW AND HOW IT WORKS and what the burden of the state is.


A kid was killed and I am pissed off about it but I am even more pissed off at the investigators, the prosecutors and the other incompetent assholes who routinely blow cases like this.

But I wont bother you and waste any more of your time, good day to you my friend.

[Hunter]

In that case, the state was wrong, and the prosecution was wrong. The jury sat in judgement of the wrong human being.

That equals institutional racism.

That may actually be a fair point, I will need to think about it a little more but I think I see where youre going with it


In fairness I think the defense did a pretty good job at avoiding putting TM on trial, there was a little bit of that and I didnt like it one bit, but compared to other cases and defense teams they did try and avoid it for the most part but not entirely and like I said I didnt like it.

Some of what I saw was akin to saying a girl who wore a short skirt deserved to be raped, I dont like that sort of defense and it happens more often than it should, the victim should never be put on trial.

[seemslikeadream]

JUL 15, 2013
Our Vigilante Nation
By Charles P. Pierce at 11:15am
(Optional Musical Accompaniment To This Post)

Besides race, which it was not about because nothing is ever about race, the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman was not about guns, either. Specifically, it was not about the propaganda of the gun culture by which we are all one small step away from being devoured as a society by criminal (coughblackcough) hordes and the only thing standing between society and the abyss is an Armed Citizenry. Specifically, it was not about the propaganda of the gun culture that sends a George Zimmerman, a pathetic, trigger-happy wannabe cop, out there in public, free to choose to make sidewalk judgments about who belongs where and why, and to back those judgments up with lethal force if it turns out he made a mistake. Specifically, it is not about the propaganda of the gun culture that trafficks in fear and that presents as its only solution deadly weaponry. No, of course, it was not about that, either.
We live now in a vigilante culture. Our police forces are militarized and increasingly prone to rogue operations in which innocent people get killed. (Radley Balko has written an extremely important book about this phenomenon, which shows no signs of slowing down. Why in hell does the Fargo P.D. need a fking tank, anyway? Are the moose getting bigger these days?) They are being encouraged to employ what can only be called vigilante tactics under the color of official authority. You want to push the definition of the word, and there's a helluva lot to our foreign policy that edges on vigilantism, too. The national legislature has broken down utterly because of the polite vigilantism of a political minority in the Senate -- The debt ceiling was "a hostage worth taking," said Mitch McConnell, and meant it -- and because of the legislative vigilantism of an obdurate House Of Representatives.
On the streets, we are being trained paradoxically to both submit to the authority of the police, and to take the law into our own hands, if necessary, because the police cannot possibly protect us from every danger. Stand Your Ground, though it played no role in the Zimmerman trial per se, is vigilantism hallowed by legislation. That's all it is. This does nothing but produce a national schizophrenia about crime and fear and weaponry that we inevitably act out. If there really were a national background check for mental stability before you could buy a gun, I'm not sure American Society could pass one.
And now, there will be marches and demonstrations in reaction to the verdict. One already has taken place in L.A.
Over 100 LAPD officers fired "less-than-lethal" rounds to clear what authorities described as an unlawful assembly of about 80 people, according to the Times. The protesters condemned the acquittal of Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, carrying signs reading "We are All Trayvon Martin" and chanting "No Justice, No Peace."
I'm sure every rubber bullet was justified.

[compared2what?]

The prosecution didn't prove their case. It was the right decision.

This trial was an illustration of institutional racism and white supremacy. An innocent child was intentionally murdered and the killer is free.

The facts do not support that assertion. I know many people would like for the trial to have been an example of institutional racism and white supremacy, but it was not.

It was a vivid illustration of institutional racism, white privilege and black social disenfranchisement, even granting that the prosecution didn't prove its case. (Or -- if you like -- that the prosecution didn't prove its case for non-institutionally racist reasons, although I personally wouldn't argue that.) I mean, he was shot for being out at night while black. Come on.

[Laodicean]