George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)

[Tommy bilfiger]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

Man sit yo ass down somewhere.Challenge the shit goin on in your backyard.Start in chicago 1st lemme see your tears and outrage about what's goin on in YOUR city you fake ass internet militant

 

[stringer bell]

thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html

The Trayvon Martin Killing and the Myth of Black-on-Black Crime

Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag “#justicefordarryl,” Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green’s murder. But this wasn’t a call for help and assistance for Green’s family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday’s decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him “not guilty” of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have ”injected” race into the discussion, as if there’s nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman’s race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the “black-on-black” crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, “49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don’t care. Obama doesn’t care. #JusticeForDarryl.”

The idea that “black-on-black” crime is the real story in Martin’s killing isn’t a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you’ll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O’Mara, who said that his client “never would have been charged with a crime” if he were black.

(It’s worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn’t charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin’s cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)

But there’s a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.

There’s no such thing as ‘black-on-black’ crime.

Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it’s true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation’s murder victims, it’s hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.

“Black-on-black crime” has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it’s no more real than “white-on-white crime.” Unlike the latter, however, the idea of “black-on-black crime” taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg’s campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn’t matter.

America is afraid of black people, and that’s especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.

 

[Hyde Parke]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

There is a stand in currently in Tallahassee where protestors( the dream defenders) are waiting on the governor to show his face and demand that this law be repealed. that isn't likely to happen. He has already said there is no need to change the law and sees nothing wrong with it. The only way to get these types of people is to threaten their pockets. Boycotting is a good idea. Hopefully other artist/performers will follow Stevie Wonders suit and refuse to support a state that has no regard for human life. Starting a petition to boycott Florida might be an idea worth considering also. Legislators only pander to special interest groups, so appealing to them is a long road to travel. In situations like this, extreme reaction is the only way to gain attention. The NRA, Marion Hammer, Jeb Bush and Florida are joined together in holy matrimony. They birthed this whole stand your ground stuff and its spreaded on to other states. You want to make a difference, threaten their pockets.

 

[can'tyoutell]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

Man sit yo ass down somewhere.Challenge the shit goin on in your backyard.Start in chicago 1st lemme see your tears and outrage about what's goin on in YOUR city you fake ass internet militant

The post that came after yours, and I don't know if it was intentional, completely destroys your argument about black on black crime.

 

[Hyde Parke]

68% of Florida Stand Your Ground defendants go free.

66% of Black Stand Your Ground defendants go free.

61% of White Stand Your Ground defendants go free.

Niggas so racist they stupid.

FALSE.

A Tampa Bay Times analysis of nearly 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in "stand your ground" — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time

 

[Gold_Certificate]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

Man sit yo ass down somewhere.Challenge the shit goin on in your backyard.Start in chicago 1st lemme see your tears and outrage about what's goin on in YOUR city you fake ass internet militant

Just checked the self-defense law in Illinois, and it doesn't seem to have a duty to retreat either:

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

^^Shit's not that different from Florida's law.

 

[BIRGGin]

I don't care what the media does. The media exaggerating doesn't give anyone the right to kill.

You're right, the law does.

Not Guilty.

Oddly you don't see anyone celebrating like it's OJ.

 

[can'tyoutell]

I don't care what the media does. The media exaggerating doesn't give anyone the right to kill.

You're right, the law does.

Not Guilty.

Oddly you don't see anyone celebrating like it's OJ.

Post too stupid to argue.

 

[LUClEN]

The case went as intended. The law is flawed. Claiming self defense when you are the aggressor is nonsense.

 

[Tommy bilfiger]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

Man sit yo ass down somewhere.Challenge the shit goin on in your backyard.Start in chicago 1st lemme see your tears and outrage about what's goin on in YOUR city you fake ass internet militant

The post that came after yours, and I don't know if it was intentional, completely destroys your argument about black on black crime.

What I witnessed supports it.I know personally 10-15 brothas killed by fellow blaccs and the daily news says otherwise

Articles wit a bunch of stats don't tell the whole story geek

 

[Gold_Certificate]

The case went as intended. The law is flawed. Claiming self defense when you are the aggressor is nonsense.

This was never proven though.

The defense didn't even include 776.041.

 

[damobb2deep]

So media used a pic of when dude is like 14?

And it's completely racist.

Kids copy what they see all the time on the TV.

Miley Cyrus and Jennifer Lawrence flash their middle finger at a camera and it's cute.

Tray does it and he's a criminal who deserved to get shot.

They hypocrisy is disgusting.

its fucked cuz she wears hoodies and gold teeth 2...

 

[Tommy bilfiger]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

Man sit yo ass down somewhere.Challenge the shit goin on in your backyard.Start in chicago 1st lemme see your tears and outrage about what's goin on in YOUR city you fake ass internet militant

Just checked the self-defense law in Illinois, and it doesn't seem to have a duty to retreat either:

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

^^Shit's not that different from Florida's law.

I wasn't talkin about stand your ground laws.I'm talking about the blacc murder rates,gang violence and blacc on blacc crime in the city of chicago

Stand your ground is irrelevant cuz handguns are illegal in chicago except for law enforcement

 

[stringer bell]

CNN found another coon named Larry Elder claiming there is no racism anymore...

 

[damobb2deep]

larry elder... is worse uncle ruckus... smh

 

[BIRGGin]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578608182550247030.html

In cases of self-defense, it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.

All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.

The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

 

[stringer bell]

Piers sonned this coon.. "How many languages do you speak she(Rachel Jental) speaks 3 .. That coon completely ignored the question and went some coon rant...

 

[damobb2deep]

lol pierce morgan jus etherd that nigga..

 

[Max.]

How do we challenge the Stand Your Ground Law?

Where do we start?

People are talking about boycotting products in Florida.

 

[BIRGGin]

Try it with a credible website.