To Kill a Mockingbird, George Zimmerman, and Ferguson

'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee told a tale of a bigoted southern town in 1930s America. In this town, Tom Robinson, a black man, was accused of raping a young white woman, Mayella Ewell. Despite overwhelming evidence of Tom Robinson's innocence, he was found guilty of rape by an all White jury, and a majority of the Whites in the town saw no problem with this travesty of justice: They were just happy to see a Black man put behind bars and no longer be a member of society. They could care less about the facts and evidence of the case: All they cared about was that Tom Robinson was Black.

The plot line of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is eerily similar to the factions of society that wanted George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson (Ferguson Missouri police officer) found guilty of murder despite the overwhelming evidence against such an allegation. These people saw no problem in tormenting Zimmerman (and his family) and Darren Wilson for the sole reason that they were White (technically Zimmerman was Hispanic, but he had a "White-sounding" last name). Special interest groups even influenced the court system and forced a trial for George Zimmerman, even though there was little evidence for even a manslaughter case, let alone a murder case. There was even less evidence in the Darren Wilson case, and racial groups rioted when the grand jury did not give them the verdict that they desired.

Have we not learned anything from 'To Kill a Mockingbird?' Do we not see the very obvious parallel here? It has been about 80 years after the setting of 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' and are we any more enlightened as a society, or are we doomed to keep making the same mistakes as in Maycomb, Alabama due to racial bigotry?

I personally see no difference between the actions of the White townspeople of Maycomb, Alabama and the actions of those who wanted nothing less than the blood of Zimmerman and Wilson.

 

I can see what you're getting at there. But I will say Zimmerman is a little unhinged. He was rightly found innocent, but his wannabe vigilantism is strange

 

Zimmerman is as guilty as sin. He got away with murder. There was plenty enough evidence to convict him the jurors just dropped the ball on that one. Zimmerman's behavior is that of a crazed vigilante who has domestic violence allegations against him before he murdered Trayvon Martin and after he was acquitted. I'm more hesitant to accuse Wilson of murder because he killed a proven criminal who may have behaved in exactly the way he says he did but Trayvon Martin was an innocent kid walking home from the store. Zimmerman's account of what happened is not credible at all and I think the prosecution made a good case for second degree murder, they were just dealing with a stupid jury.

 

There was not plenty of evidence at all.

Zimmerman was lawfully following Martin and martin decided to double back and attack Zimmerman. Martin died whilst unlawfully assaulting Zimmerman.
There is no possible way that if Martin had just proceeded home that the incident could have happened. Martibn wanted trouble and he got killed because he was a violent little THUG who decided that he had to phyically attack Zimmerman.

 

Just curious, if someone you cared about told you that someone was following them, you'd be ok with it? You'd tell them, "Don't worry, they have a right to follow you. Anyway, people that follow you have your best interest at heart ."

 

There was absolute ZERO evidence for murder. Even a manslaughter charge would be a difficult one.

In what world are you living in? You obviously did not see the same trial as the rest of us. The physical evidence and the timeline of the event made it impossible to consider Zimmerman's actions as murder.

I see you have as much anger and denial as the White townspeople of Maycomb, Alabama. Thank you for proving my point.

 

I'd say, "Call 911 and boogie on home." I would NOT say "Go assault that cracker and see what you get."

 

If you believe this then please get help understanding the underlying issues in To Kill a Mocking Bird and why they don't nearly relate to the guy who stalked and killed a teenager walking home and a police officer who became the symbol, wrongly, for the image of the police in a small town that has racial issues.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think stealing cigarillos would have been reason enough for killing Mike Brown. Conservatives defending Wilson (just as they defend Zimmerman and anyone else who kills black individuals in the name of "law and order") seem to think that one misdemeanor, minor as it was, justifies his loss. Their belief that shoplifting warrants the death penalty is something I'd sooner expect from some Islamic theocracy in the Third World than the "enlightened" US, and yet the same conservatives who rationalize Wilson's shooting are always the most vocal about "civilizing" the Islamic Third World.

 

He didn't get killed for shoplifting. He got killed for allegedly making a move that Wilson interpreted as reaching for his weapon. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. But you can't make a sudden move toward an officer while under arrest and expect him to not act defensively.
If you want to point to a case that actually did get screwed up go with Eric Garner.

PS: stealing in countries under Sharia gets your hand chopped off

 

He killed the kid didn't he? Where is the evidence that Trayvon Martin tried to grab Zimmerman's gun and threatened to kill him? Does that sound like the behavior of some kid walking home from the store with candy minding his own business?

Nonsense. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin and the 911 call shows he acted with a depraved mindset. It was cold blooded murder. We can only speculate on the sequence of events leading up to the murder but the fact is he killed him. Also you ignore the fact that Zimmerman has terrible credibility when it comes to controlling himself. How many cases has he been in now where he threatened someone with a gun? I lost count.

If you think I was expressing anger in that post then you need to work on your reading comprehension. Comparing the racist prejudices of the town in To Kill a Mocking Bird to observers being upset over the blatant murder of an unarmed teenager is disgusting.

 

So why did police, after reviewing the evidence, release George Zimmerman?

People calling 911 usually don't act with a depraved mindset, if only because they guard their actions because they know for sure police will arrive.

It's like two people in a conversation with only one knowing the conversation is being recorded. That one knowing will choose his words carefully and not do anything to tarnish himself.

Zimmerman's action was found to be legally justified. Murder is unlawful killing.

Therefore, calling Zimmerman a murderer is untruthful rhetoric.

 

So for your loved one, you wouldn't recommend self defense/standing their own ground. Okie doke, got it.

 

Not to mention that cops may take a while to get to places even if you do call 911. If the threat is more immediate, self-defense makes sense in the meantime while you're waiting for their arrival.

 

of course we all know that american justice system is so not racist.

 

As absolutely, positively, the last resort. I would never, ever tell my loved one they needed to confront a stalker, alone on a rainy night.

 

For the millionth time, there was no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman stalked Treyvon Martin. He was a neighborhood watchman trying to identify a suspicious person wandering onto peoples' property. And can we PLEASE stop referring to Martin, who was 6 feet tall, 160 lbs, and able to drive a car, as a "teenager:" That's disingenuous. Your continuing to ignore the lack of evidence against Zimmerman, despite multiple law enforcement agencies performing investigation on top of investigation (not to mention Eric Holder's Dept of "Justice" looking for any excuse imaginable to put this guy in jail), is further prove that there are some in this society that have not evolved beyond those vindictive and racist White people in Maycomb, Alabama.

 

You have heard of self-defense, haven't you?

Where do I get started?
Zimmerman had head wounds consistent with his head being bashed into the concrete exactly as he described. The forensic pathologist described the trajectory of the bullet and the distance between the muzzle and Martin as consistent with Zimmerman's story. There were no eyewitness accounts that corroborated Martin's story. Eyewitness and audio experts confirmed screaming heard on a recording of the event as Zimmerman's voice. The timeline of the the duration that immediately proceeded the event (calculated from the cell phone calls), indicate that Martin could have easily walked home as a snail's pace but seemingly chose to confront Zimmerman. Lastly, Zimmerman called 911 just before the event, indicating that he did not want a confrontation, but rather wanted the police to handle the incident.

Your question indicates that you, like the White townsfolk of Maycomb, Alabama, are missing the big picture. To be found guilty of murder, a jury needs to be shown evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no evidence of murder whatsoever. On the contrary, there is a ton of evidence that shows that this is likely an act of self-defense (see the many examples above).

There is as much evidence of this as there is that showed Tom Robinson raped Mayella Ewell.

For the millionth time, all of the evidence is in complete disagreement with your statement. The evidence indicates self-defense.

Again, you have heard of self-defense, right?

So you are judging the man from actions he did AFTER the trial took place? That hardly seems fair. And it's not like Treyvon Martin was a choirboy and honors student either. Thus, the best you can say is that both had credibility problems.

The fact remains is that you and others like you are willing to put an potentially innocent man in jail because you dislike him for irrational reasons (e.g. his skin color, the fact that he is a gun owner). All of the evidence collected in this case strongly goes against your assertions. Hence, I would like to thank you and all of those who agree with you for proving my OP.

The fact that you called the jury "stupid" for no other reason than they disagreed with your opinion indications that you are clearly angry. Anyone in their right mind would have found Zimmerman not-guilty of murder. Again, the evidence could not have been more favorable to Zimmerman's defense. Hence, the jury is not "stupid:" They made a sensible conclusion based on the evidence that was presented to them.

The only disgusting thing here is your ignorance and willingness to throw a man behind bars for the rest of his life for acting in self defense. Also, your dishonesty by calling Martin an "unarmed teenager" (as if it is not possible to kill a man by bashing his head into concert) shows how pathetic and desperate your argument is.

 

Is that why Northeast Asians have lower crime rates than Whites?

 

It's perfectly legal to shadow someone in public.

It's not legal to slam someone's head against the sidewalk.

 

The only part I find a little concerning on the Zimmerman case is that he was told not to follow Martin after contacting the police, yet he did anyway.

The reality is that the only person who really knows what happened is Zimmerman himself, the jury acquitted him based on the available evidence . .even though the foreman of the jury stated that he did not believe Zimmerman acted in self-defence, they just didn't have enough evidence to confirm that. In the end justice was seen to be done and as such Zimmerman was acquitted due to lack of evidence.

As to comparisons to the story To kill a mocking bird I personally don't find them comparable.

 

Is it also perfectly legal for the person being shadowed to confront the person who is shadowing them, especially if they are in fear of being attacked?

If Martin had legally owned a gun and had shot Zimmerman as he approached him, would that also have been seen as self-defence if Martin had claimed he was in fear of his life?

Under Florida's stand your ground laws (Sections 776.012, and 776.013 ) I would say yes, would you also be defending Martin in the same way as Zimmernan if this had occurred?

We only have Zimmernan's testimony that-that is what actually happened, a testimony disputed by the prosecution Medical Examiner Dr. Valerie Rao as to the actual number of blows Zimmerman received.

 

This wasn't the question but ok.
If someone follows you, you'd run home. Okie doke. Got it.

This is a good question. At least he would have fended off the predator.

 

I see an alternative plausible sequences of events leading up to Martin's death.

Martin realised he was being followed, confronted Zimmerman by asking him why he was following him, Zimmerman probably replied along the lines of "You punks have been robbing around here so I'm making sure you don't", Martin probably replied in kind and the whole thing escalated to violence (unknown who started it). All conjecture of course, but no less plausible than Zimmerman's account.

I wonder what would have happened if Zimmerman had made himself known as a member of the Neighbourhood watch to Martin.

 

I would tell them to get to teh nearest safe place. I would certainly not tell them to double back and attack someone as Martin did.