Unarmed Kid Killed (part 5)

I have a suggestion. Let's compile a list of indisputable facts for the case and go from there.

 

Fact #1 - George Zimmerman is not white.

 

If my last name was Chang would I be Chinese?

 

I see. Have you ever met one of those weird white guys who thinks he's Native American because hundreds of years ago one of his ancestors hooked up with a native woman?

 

Fact #2: The police have not been able to form enough probable cause to refute Zimmerman's version of events.

_

 

Fact #3 - To some, this means absolutely nothing, they've already made up their minds.

 

Yeah, Trayvon's father was not even sure at first.

 

Does it matter what I think it sounds like?

 

True, but they have been shown to be way out in left field.

_

 

As I understand it, there are only three basic ethnic groups in humanity (though some may argue that Polynesian is a fourth group) and they are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. We all fall into these base categories, even though some will be of mixed ethnicity. Therefore, an olive skinned Italian, Greek, or an Iranian, is a Caucasian (and may be considered 'white', as distinct from black or yellow). In fact, no human being is white - Caucasians range from various shades of pinkish yellow to light brown or tan. So all this conjecture over whether any individual or national group may be considered white is fairly pointless.

This tragedy involved human beings, of what ethnicity the individuals involved may be considered is of no real consequence. One of the attendant tragedies to this killing is that the ethnicity of the victim, and the perpetrator, are considered of significance in the society in which it occurred. But we need to be careful not to lose sight of these facts.

A 17 year old young man who was not acting unlawfully, or even unusually, has been needlessly killed.

The person who killed him acted in a manner which was both unwise and reckless of human life - whatever his motives were.

The police department whose duty it was to report and take action upon the matter have acted in a way which throws doubt upon their impartiality and competence.

It is my opinion that we would gain more by discussing those facts which are known, analysing the balance of probability in respect of the sequence of events, and refraining from casting racial and national slurs upon those who do not always agree with our individual surmise.

Discussion of this sort helps put events into perspective, and listening to how others see an event or issue, often helps clarify our own appreciation of the situation. My own view has shifted slightly (due to inputs from people opposing my initial reaction) to that of Zimmerman being the victim of his own self-view as a sort of caped crusader. I imagine that he has self-concept problems, and a series of events led him to commit an act that he would not have initially intended. He should certainly be charged and tried for what he did, but I have greater problems with the laws that may have misled him into thinking he was acting reasonably under the circumstances, than with Zimmerman's rather weak character.

 

No. But I've met people who are half or a quarter Black and are called BLACK!

The fact is that the color of the skin is NOT what is important in this case.

I personally feel that "brown" is not a race, and that all Latinos are WHITE, unless they are INDIANS. Italians are obviously White, and they were the first Latinos. Spanish would probably never speak to you again if you called them anything but white!

This "Latinos are not White" is totally limited to NORTH AMERICA.

And, in this case, it is a moot point. It is not because of the difference of race that this guy should be charged with homicide, but because he killed an unharmed, young kid, who had every right to be in that gated complex and was threatening NO ONE!

 

Give me break.

If Zimmerman had been the victim, and the shooter white, the race angle would still be played.

The main reason this case has gained so much attention is due to the race/class aspect. That is it.

 

I wonder, if Zimmerman were 75.6% black and Martin was only 37.589% black, would the lynch mob be so willing to scream murder?

_

 

I am not disputing any of that. I am saying that is not as it should be, and we should be trying to get away from that sort of thinking. The tragedy is not that a 'white' man killed a 'black' teen - the tragedy is that a large, armed, 28-year old felt so threatened by a slight, unarmed, 17-year old, that he shot him dead.

 

Yeah, funny that. Obama for example, the first 'black' president.

If Zimmerman would have been black, this story would have sputtered out.

Next to nobody thinks of anything other than Anglo Saxon when the term 'white' is used.

Again, this would practically be a non-story under different circumstances.

 

If Zimmerman is the man screaming on the 911 recordings, and he was on his back being beaten bloody, would he have a right to feel threatened?

_

 

They're so full of (*)(*)(*)(*), it's flowing out of their mouths.

 

You're funny! A bloody nose means you are being "beaten bloody?" and "your life is threatened?"

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because he obviously was no longer on the ground, and the kid had his back turned to Zimmerman when he fell on the ground, face down, shot to death!

And. . .something hit me as being kind of weird when you quoted a statement from the 13 year old kid in an earlier post:

I think it's pretty amazing that the kid could have been able to see a "RED" shirt in the "DARK. . . .but not seen if the person on the ground was a slight boy or a heavy set man!

And. . . I wonder if that "red shirt" report had anything to do with the picture of Zimmerman that has been widely published since day one. . .where he wears what could be taken as a "red shirt," but which is probably a dark orange convict overall. . . since that specific picture is his mugshot from his arrest in 2005!

And that is a fact!

 

Even assuming that were the case, hyperbole does not assist your case. I have been fights at school where I have suffered a bloody nose, and bleeding from cuts on my face and head, and no one would describe that as being beaten bloody - just somewhat hors de combat. According to the reports, Zimmerman had a cut on the back of his head, and a bloody nose - he was neither unconscious nor incapable. If you mean he was losing the scuffle, then no - he might have been feeling somewhat peeved, but he had no right to feel that his life was being threatened.

 

You don't know that... neither does anyone else (except for Zimmerman). The only thing that matters now is the hard evidence. I thought this had already been established in early segments of this thread.

That has nothing to do with anyone's description of Zimmerman that night.

 

Why do you insist in bringing race in this issue. The fact is that Zimmerman should be arrested and go to trial in front of a jury who will determine whether or not he had cause for "self-defense" plea.

During that trial, the jury will ALSO have the duty to determine IF racism entered into the actions taken by Zimmerman. . . and if it did, and if his "self-defense" plea is rejected, the jury may have to determine if this shooting should be tried as a hate crime.

Until then, race has nothing to do with the action itself!