many are the promises, but few are kept.

http://youtu.be/QUl8VpMMm78

Sockpuppets and I are the only posters here.

Guess I’ve leave.

I have yet to see a single story about candlelight vigils for John Sanderson. There’s no outrage about a group of young black men murdering a white college student, no Congressional hearings scheduled, no civil rights hucksters leading marches, no teachable moment.  I have yet to see any news organization go with wall-to-wall coverage of this case.  Or, as I pointed out below, the 14 gunned down (one a 5 year old girl) at a funeral parlor in Florida.

moonie—- post something germane to your claim of sockpuppetry or return to
blowing your goat.

you got pull on his pud, pendeja.

Such a mature response, there, pipsqueak.

I take back my recommendation to the Chinese government that they hire you to sockpuppet the sites there.

But they MIGHT still be able to use you to run up those Nikes…..

Pack your bags.

I got pull.

And remember, there’s always a brother from The Rez ready to help you pack.

moonie——you the same asshole as someone else or are
you your very own bunger.

any time you want to explain why Imax and I share
anything beyond a common idea of your racist stench,
please go right ahead, loca.

I would think it would be easy as pie since you are the same poster!

Sockpuppets, get a room and get outa here.

hetero,

No.  I cannot, in any rationale that comes to mind, answer any of your questions.

IMax—- would you care to elaborate as to what evidence or even indication Z
offers that shows any wrong-doing by Martin?

hetero, “How do you personally know?”

-

You say you have no reason to think otherwise and no need to defend the idea absent contraindications.  But you do have contradictions.  You have the defendant both on audio and his subsequent statements on the scene.  You’ve judged those contradictions as untrue or unreliable.  I’m asking you to be clear.  What is it that has you dismissing these contradictions? 

Also, and equally important, as far as I am aware, today, the only facts I seem to have are those told by the responding officers, Zimmerman himself, and a few witnesses.  Why do you,  yourself, see this incident as based on race?  I would truly like to know. You yourself keep drawing attention to the fact that Martin was black.  Why?

Apart from how this has reached a fevered pitch in reporting, what am I missing on the accusation of racism?  Where did race play a part in any way?  That is to say, I’m looking for something apart from all those who benefit in repeating the charge every day that has passed.

——How do you personally know young Martin was
simply walking down the street harmlessly then
hassled w/o apparent reason or real cause?——

because no one has said otherwise, that’s the
presumption.

should it be shown that he was using a flame-thrower
to bbq a baby…or should it be shown that anyone in
the whole wide world had reason to know that he had
caused harm to someone or something, it might have
been mentioned by now.

unless and until I have some reason to doubt that he
was simply and harmlessly existing, I’ll retain my
assumption.

I assume that you’re innocent, IMax, as well….even
when others are joined in assailing you as a
malefactor, I regard you as a decent person.

no reason to think otherwise and no need to defend
the idea absent contraindications…...

of course,  if you’re dressed up like a rebellious
teenager ....might have to got up in your grill.

Trayvon’s Mother Wants Justice, But Also Believes Death ‘Was An Accident’

I continue wondering if this was a horrible accident.  I simply don’t have the enough of the facts to draw any solid conclusions.

hetero,

I have tremendous problems with how the incident is being reported and how so many are exploiting both Martin and Zimmerman for their own purposes.

How do you personally know young Martin was simply walking down the street harmlessly then hassled w/o apparent reason or real cause?  What am I missing?

IMax——I was not as much specifically referring to this thing, but it sorta fits the
profile…..not as much as the hustlers such as Sharpton would like, but, aside from
Z’x mother being Latin, it’s close enough….. gated community, young man hassled
for the crime of walking the streets garbed inappropriately, hassled w/o apparent
reason or real cause, and then ending up shot dead despite being unarmed.

you have a problem seeing this not just tragic….but tinged with ugliness?

hetero, - “it may be that white on black crime motivated by color is a more serious problem if a less common one.”

-

Yes.  This has been WIDELY reported as “motivated by color”.  So the most obvious question is, how is Zimmerman/Martin motivated by color?  I see nothing, whatsoever. 

Why the current hysterics?

IMax——there a far greater prevalence of black/black crime….but given the
history of the country, it may be that white on black crime motivated by color is a
more serious problem if a less common one.

most of the people in my immediate area are black and they/we have no trouble
denouncing all the black folks who are criminals, but also have no reticence with
voicing the idea that they are sick and tired of spending their lives having every
day to prove themselves worthy of being trusted to act as a civilized and decent
person.

It seems Young Mr. Zimmerman is currently being tortured with the decision to hold him in isolation while in custody.

gerard,

See what I mean?  The mere mention of black on black crime in the United States makes people so very uncomfortable they quickly wish to change the subject.

We ought to discuss global violence on any other appropriate thread.  On this thread we ought to discuss how you and others tend to believe white on black violence is an issue that should be addressed while 90% of the violent deaths of black men is actually the result of violence from black men.  How about we not avoid these real problem and address them head-on?

IMax:  Before I close for the night I must remind you, in reply to your post “... there is a tremendous problem with black on black crime.” 
There is a far, far more “tremendous problem” with American crimes (both of omission and of commission) throughout the entire world which you seem to avoid looking at most of the time but which haunts me day and night, every day and night, year after year. And it is only fair to note that most of it is victimizing people of color. Yet when people bring that up here, you are very apt to jump down their throat with criticisms that they are not only biased, but “anarchists, communists and dangerous.”
So knock it off, will you please?

Imax:

After dealing with the world the way it is, we must CHANGE it.

You don’t seem to be interested in anything but the status quo, and other folks are only interested in their dreams and fantasies.

I wonder how many of you folks are loaded on controlled substances to keep the pain of reality away?

gerard,

Zimmerman charged with 2nd Degree murder.  It appears he may have pulled the trigger illegally.  We’ll have to wait and see.

I will continue doing my best to listen.  I read your words carefully and keep your ideas in context.  Your context.  Did you sincerely listen to me before you wrote in response to Justice Dept. statistics concerning black on black, black on white, white on white, and white on black crime rates?  After I wrote how even mentioning this opens one up to, as you put it, “the inevitable effect of quoting such statistics is that it amounts to an accusation?”

Even the mere mention of these very real pathologies make a great many people uncomfortable.  Your being uncomfortable has much less to do with me than it does you. Or MYSELF when I first learned the same.  We must deal with the world as it is.  Not as we wish it to be.  There is a tremendous problem, particularly with black on black crime.  You cannot, in all good conscience, fault me for bringing these very real issues to all our attention.  Most especially at a time like this.  Come on, Gerard.

Zimmerman/Martin is precisely why I am dead set against Conceal Carry.  We’ll save that discussion for another time.

I see no difference between the affective natures of militants and ones who are not.

And I am an eyewitness.  I also still keep in touch with some of those guys.  The only students I had in the Middle east who were sharper than the Palestinians were the Iraquis.

Of course that’s before the gringos bulldozed the Iraqui educatiuonal system into the Tigris.

In the country of the blind it is not true that the one-eyed man is king.  In the HG Wells story, they put out his eye.

Yeah—my nephew taught Palestinian kids at a camp in
Jordan….very warm and loving people….except for the
militants and Islamists among them.

Just a little Native American humor.

When I was teaching Palestinian university studentsI noticed that they had the same sense of humor as we Native Americans.

Must come from constantly being the target of genocidal goons like the gringos and the Israelis.

you’re funny and read more funny.

I see you are still making threatrs against my person, piecework peon.

In a country with a state of law and order, you’d be posting those threats from a cell.

moonie—- you’re the one going down….and no one but the goat benefits.

Heteronym:

If the US made it a policy to root for the non-white in conflicts with whites, you would still have not pulled the rooting sections even when the sound of flushing takes over.

Almost 400 years of rooting for whites and killing non-whites—those numbers add up.  Of indigenous folks that’d mean somewhere between 15 and 20 million non-whites you’d be rooting for in Gringolandia.

Now when you add the numbers of blacks killed, asians killed, “hispanics” killed….well, even you should be able to see that Gringolandia will be long gone before any parity could be achieved.

And that is really sick.

And really sad.

And that, pieceowrk peon, is why gringolandia is

going

down.

IMax:  Quoting you: “My saying “young Zimmerman” is simply the way I talk.” That’s precisely my point. I am explaining to you “the way you talk” and its effect on the person(s) you talk to, some of the possible implications of that “way” of talking.The very fact that you deny it indicates that you don’t realize it.  It’s true of everyone. Look at the sour mess I created with Moonraven recently.  I had to admit that, for some reason I couldn’t understand, the way I was talking (perhaps even more than what I said) was ticking her off more and more. I gave up.
It is not easy to talk about real problems with each other because our minds are “already made up.” Perhaps it is not worth trying—unless we are all willing to try, not so much to “win points” but to
“listen with the third ear.” Until we do that, we are all bound to be more or less “disingenuous.”
  And again you say: “Never did I point toward crime statistics to raise an accusation toward blacks.” It is quite true that you might not have intended to “raise an accusation” by quoting those statistics. However, the inevitable effect of quoting such statistics is that it amounts to an accusation, works like an accusation and attempts to prove an accusatory point. I mention it because I know you don’t realize the effects of many things you say.
  Now please bear with me for one more minute. Stop, take a deep breath, and seriously listen to this statement:  “It’s not a crime, per se, to shoot someone.”  Repeat it over to yourself ten times, considering all the implications of pain, hurt, death, sorrow, mourning, disaster for friends and relatives, denial of human value.  Not to mention, lifetime regrets, feelings of guilt, wishes to have done otherwise and to return to a time before you picked up that gun.  Etc. Etc. Eventually, if you follow that trail, I think you will come out of the forest in a much wiser and happier place than where you entered.

moonie—- your despicable idea that we all should always root for the non-white
party in conflicts is just sick and sad.

gerard——Well, since it is a crime to shoot somebody, and Martin is dead, and
Zimmerman shot him, in my view a crime has been committed——

actually, it’s not a crime to shoot somebody.

only a crime when other things accompany the shooting.

Maxipad:

I am not sick with anything—but I am sick of the mountains of bullshit posted by you and other pimps for patriotism on this site to justify the complete lack of a state of law and order in the genocidal regime of the US.

You are just pissed because I see the reality and describe it, while youy are shovelling like sixty to cover it up.

Right back atcha, US government piecework poster.

Moonraging,

Usted está enfermo de odio.

gerard,

You misinterpret why I say the things I say.  Two of many examples: 1. Never did I point toward crime statistics to raise an accusation toward blacks.  You so entirely missed the point.  2. My saying “young Zimmerman” is simply the way I talk.  Nothing was directed toward you.

It’s not a crime, per se, to shoot someone.  We must deal with the world as it is.  Not as we wish it to be.

White-Hispanic was devised to solicit the sympathies of white people?  Hmmm, well, thinking…...  I can only think to say that I hope you’re being disingenuous when you devised that response.

Imax:

You cannot have it both ways:

You cannot object to gerard’s view as lacking a presumption of innocence and therefore unacceptable

when there is no presumption of innocence for non-white folks in the US and you actively support that system of “justice”..

So, knock off the plastic liberal “rollo” that you are trying to cover this issue with.

I have absolutely no sumpathy for Zimmerman.  He was told to back off and keep his nose out of things that were not of his incumbency to act, he disobeyed and he shot and killed a black kid.

His racist hate overhwlemed what few grains of common sense and prudence he may have had.

He should pay the cosequences of his behavior.  period.

Not try to become a celebrity and turn his criminal act into a money-making caper.

“Young Zimmerman’s life is in danger because the incident has been widely reported as a “white” man shooting a “black” boy and the race industry in the United States have baited people to react.”
  Disingenuious—lacking sincerity—probably I used the wrong word because you may be sincere. I could have said “unsophisticated” or “manipulative” and come closer, maybe.  Anyhow, the comment above is the same.  Why?
  1. “Young”—used in order to be sure I know that Zimmerman is as young as Martin, or close, and therefore as “innocent” (as pitiable, as naive, as worthy of sympathy etc. As if I didn’t know!)
  2. “widely reported as .. etc.” (Pushing this on me again as if I didn’t recognize press manipulation of racism—though I have said many times (and you know by now) that I don’t care whether a person with a gun is white or black or blue; all would be equally at fault. I am totally aware that the word “white” is inserted to influence “white” people to sympathize with Zimmerman, and that it is press manipulation of public opinion, and that it is manipulating race prejudice, using race favoritism.
  Back to your question: Do we have any knowledge that (again) young Zimmerman (to be sure I “get” it) is guilty of a crime?
  Well, since it is a crime to shoot somebody, and Martin is dead, and Zimmerman shot him, in my view a crime has been committed and Zimmerman had the one and only gun on site.  If Martin had shot Zimmerman, that would also have been a crime.  When people shoot peoople, it’s a crime.  There may be people who make laws to make it seem that killing someone is not a crime, because, because, because.  I don’t buy it.
  Should Zimmerman be punished?  My private and unpopular view is “No” because it does no good and often makes things worse, especially when prisons are rotten.
  The act itself punishes the person who performed the action by reducing that person in the view of everyone, including himself. That’s why soldiers come home with PTSD, and even somsetimes urinate on the bodies of peoople they killed.  It’s all equally sick and un-human. Even talking about it over and over, “explaining”, “answering questions” when everybody already knows the answers is, as they say, “an exercise in futility”.  If you didn’t know that before, I’m calling it to your attention now so that we can both crawl out of this nonsensical, sick question/answer game that pretends to be “helpful”,
“worthwhile” or “necessary.”
  P.S.  Your point about “Black on black crime, black on white crime, far exceed white on black crime.” is so “disingenuous” that it is hard to believe you raise it as an accusation against blacks.
The crimes committed by white-dominated society against all people “of color” are incalculably
excessive, malicious, deliberate and enduring. Not to recognize this, and the attendant evils it creates, is to be a fool.  You are not a fool. 
  So long for now.

gerard,

But my questions of Why were genuine.  Perhaps, at your leisure, you can look at my questions a second time.  Nothing disingenuous about them.

Sadly, the Justice Dept. statistics are as they have been presented by the Justice Department.  Black on black crime, black on white crime, far exceed white on black crime.  The total opposite of what we’re being riled about concerning Zimmerman/Martin.

Young Zimmerman’s life is in danger because the incident has been widely reported as a “white” man shooting a “black” boy and the race industry in the United States have baited people to react.  We can witness these reactions on this very site.

Frankly, IMax, I blame everybody and nobody—black, white, purple, chartreuse.  All are human beings and as such, are equal, and should treat each other gently and justly, especially in cases where basic human rights are concerned. This humane treatment is also possible, and happens now and then, which proves its possibility. Everybody knows this, and everybody still permits unequal rights to continue for hundreds of years, (with all the ensuing misery), doing less than enough to put things right. Wny is that?
  I am not in the least interested in punishing Zimmerman because punishment is not the answer, and in many cases makes things worse.  I am interested in prevention. And I am interested that people stop relying on guns to solve their problems—whether they are black, white, purple or chartreuse.  I am interested in stopping inequalities in rights, and the violence that usually results. The only way I see to do it is to get together and help each other instead of compete, separate, go off the deep end and jaw ourselves into a coma. Or shoot each other in some fearsome rage created by hysteria and pain.
  As to your deplorable statistics, if true, there must be some overshadowing reasons, and if the over-shadows were removed, the statistics would disappear.  But, that involves equal rights (guaranteed by the Constitution but otherwise more and more ignored over time, thanks to some people holding excessive “power over” other people). Too often this “power over” determines rights and is enforced with guns.  Witness, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan if you don’t want to look at L.A., Arizona, Louisiana, Idaho or Detroit. It’s all the same yardage.  Essentially, a “white-Hispanic” with a gun is no more nor less dangerous than a lily-white Nordic or a jet-black Congolese. People just like to pretend so because it increases their sense of their own value at the same time it decreases their sense of the value of others. Your “why” question regarding shades of color is disingenuous because everybody knows the answer is prejudice as both cause and effect, one playing off the other.  Remove the discrimination, and over time the animosities would disappear because they would “lose traction” in everybody’s minds. Why scratch at the minor differences until they are running sores?  Why not give equality a serious try instead keeping it on life support by jawing it to death for centuries? The Crusaders thought the same way about the “Saracens” and vise versa, and in our present M.E. wars the same legend gets serious traction on both sides. Doesn’t that tell you something about the price of ignorance?
  I’m done for now.

Gerard, you say: “Yes, I am sure that Zimmerman’s life is at risk. The fevers of race prejudice are running so high, - You go on to say that only understanding helps.  And when situations are complicated and ‘loaded’ it is necessary to go into details, isn’t it?”

-

Yes, the details.

I feel I should repeat something from a prior post.  Every year hundreds of Americans are shot and killed under controversial circumstances, where the evidence is incomplete and subject to dispute, often making impossible an immediate charge of murder or manslaughter, at least until further witnesses or information come forth.  It’s important, I think, to keep in the forefront of our minds how this is not a rare occurrence. - Not that we would know this from media coverage.

We, the public, rarely, if ever, hear of such tragedies. These certainly are not national news items. What, then, made the Trayvon Martin shooting so different?

If Trayvon Martin had been white, or George Zimmerman had been black, or had both been black or both white, there would have been no outrage: 94% of murdered blacks are killed by other blacks, to almost no national outcry. Just this past Friday in Florida, fourteen were gunned down (two killed) to silence (at a funeral parlor, no less), as the protestors of the single Martin fatality went ahead with further demonstrations.

You say you regret the whole stupid business of a nation with tremendous possibilities that is willing to tie itself up in knots rather than to confess its short-comings and clean up its injustices.

In part I agree.  But here’s the thing.  Justice Dept. statistics illustrate how whites are far more likely to be murdered by blacks than vice versa, despite the latter comprising only 11-12% of the population — again to no national outcry. The distinction in this case was that Martin was black. Zimmerman was not. The rule in America is apparently that only the more rare white on black crime — not far more common black on black, or black on white, or white on white — is symbolic of larger pathologies, both past and present. In earlier decades of American history, the reverse was more likely true: black on white crime aroused public furor in a way white on white or black on black or white on black crime did not. That fact in time was accepted as clearly symptomatic of racial bias, but the inverse of that today is said not to be. Why?  We are not even suppose to mention the higher rate of black on white crime for fear of being labeled racist at heart.  Why?

George Zimmerman is now referred to as “a white Hispanic” on the basis of his Hispanic mother and white father, although he would be classified as “Hispanic” should he have applied for a civil service job. The president of the United States, to my knowledge, is not supposed to be referred to as a “white African-American” due to the fact of one of his parents being white. Apparently the insertion of “white” into racial identification is to lessen the claim of the referent on victimhood.

Note that had Zimmerman preferred, as do many of mixed heritage, to Hispanicize his first name (e.g. Jorge) or use his mother’s Peruvian maiden name, he would be de facto “Latino,” and the case would have lost its white/black resonance. It surely would not have made the national news. Latino/black and black/Latino crime either offers no teachable moment in our ill society or provokes a counter-response from the Latino activist community.

One can be conscious of the fact that 2-3% of the population (young black males) commits over 30% of the nation’s crime; but if one were to use that information to guide one’s behavior then it is deplorable and degenerates into racial profiling.  Why, then, is the same not true in reverse?  I’m not attempting to attack you personally in asking, are you not admitting that you have allowed racial profiling to color your judgements regarding Zimmerman/Martin?

The cause I am forever highlighting is non-violence (restraing from violence, avoidance of violence, rejection of violence—all violence anywhere, any time. Period. “Thou shalt not kill.” (White supremecists disagree. A majority of other people also disagree.  But ... an increasing number of   people are beginning to wonder ... ?  Why not?)
  ” I felt threatened,” said Zimmerman. (The reason for that threatened feeling has not yet been established, but you can wager that an important intention of the prosecution will be to estabish it. His attorneys are already busy. Why?
  Because the establishment of threat is necessary to conform to the requirements of this misbegotten law they have down there.
  Well, what is the purpose of all this “national security” spying and record-keeping?  Could it be to make people feel “threatened?”  Oh, no. Of course not. It’s to make them feel “secure”?  In a pig’s eye!  It is to keep them cowed with fear of flimsy accusations of disloyalty and “terrorist” sympathies. And it works.  Everybody’s scared half to death.  Mum’s the word. Freedom of speech is a half-dead duck, and everybody’s afraid to do what is necessary to revitalize it.  To hell with Democracy! they seem to prefer to say.
  The only “evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime” is that he shot somebody. He had the only gun on the scene, and he said he did it, his excuse being that he “felt threatened.”  So “feeling threatened” is apparently a pretty serious business, and those who encourage others to “feel threatened” have some responsibility in this kind of situation, no?
  So far, we think we know that Martin also “felt threatened” but unfortunately he is not alive to tell us. There are some strong indications, however, and it is reasonable to assusme that racism might hae been part of the reason, at least.  He was black. Many people (especially in that territory) “feel threatened” by black people.  Martin was unarmed,  Martin was being followed. People who are being followed often “feel threatened.” It was night, and he was in or near some kind of “gated” community which was probably also traumatized by fear—otherwise, why “gated.” 
  Anything else.  Oh yes, I almost forgot:  He, too, had been hearing a lot about “surveillance” and how it is necessary for the government to keep its electronic eyes on everybody just in case ... with the predictable result ... inchoate fear .. .  Being black makes that factor more intense just on the basis of multiple experiences of repression and injustice.
  Get me strait here.  I take no joy or satisfaction out of punishing Zimmerman.  I feel sorry for him and wish he had more common sense. I regret that another black kid’s life was snuffed out for no good reason.  I despise the gun lobby for helping to arm people who should not, and have no real need, to burden themselves with killing machines and go out as self-appointed vigilantes, fearing trouble.
  So now the government is doubly responsible—indirectly, of course.  Nothing you could actually pin on somebody.  Just a logical assumption.
  Yes, I am sure that Zimmerman’s life is at risk. The fevers of race prejudice are running so high, especially in the territory of the half-buried, half-exhumed Civil War land of blood and ghosts.  I regret the whole stupid business of a nation with tremendous possibilities that is willing to tie itself up in knots rather than to confess its short-comings and clean up its injustices.
  But regret doesn’t get us anywhere, does it? Only understanding helps.  And when situations are complicated and “loaded” it is necessary to go into details, isn’t it?
  God help us!  We need to understand how we think, and what we say, and how we say it, and to whom. (I sadly miscalculated with Moonraven recently, and I deeply regret it!  It’s enough to shut me up, if I had any sense.
  Thanks for your response.

gerard,

You’re not going to like my response.  It’s what I’ve been trying to discuss with you for the past 6-7 months.  If I am brutally honest you couch nearly everything according to your causes while using the victims to highlight those causes.  I have read your posts carefully.

Your list below assumes one thing.  That Zimmerman is guilty of a crime because he shot someone.  There is no presumption of innocents in any of your language to date.  And, again, you and others are using the situation to highlight numerous other causes.

Gerard, please understand, you cannot possibly have enough information to attach anything Zimmerman or Martin did or did not do with white supremacist groups anywhere.  The mere exercise has no place in determining Martin or Zimmerman’s guilt or innocents.  Not attaching our own preconceived ideas, or causes, is precisely what we need now.  Zimmerman’s very life is at risk today because far too may are openly using Zimmerman to air their grievances about race, the police, the justice system etc..

I respect your goals, gerard.  And you’re right in that I don’t fully comprehend your methods or your conclusions.  Although I am more than willing to continue trying.

So now let me ask.  While young Martin is dead and the Martin and Zimmerman families suffer horribly, do we have any knowledge that young Zimmerman is guilty of a crime?  It’s an important question.  Because no crime means no arrest, no Grand Jury, no arraignment, no plea, no incarceration.  This happens hundreds of times every week with people of all colors.  Particularly the highest category of crime, black on black violence.

IMax:  Although I’m nearly convinced that talkiong about these loaded situations is useless, I guess I have a little farther to go.
  Please consider a couple things from my point of view:
  Number 1:  I used your language, the way you put things, to try to show that in some respects it is very common preferential vocabulary, though probably unconsciously so.  We all do it.  Our word choice sometimes shows preferences that are hidden withint that word choice.  I was telling you and others what seemed to me to be obvious. I was not maliciously twisting what you said, but to show common tendencies in cases like this to reveal things that are not easily revealable. I didn’t address you personally because I am not criticizing you personally. The way you presented that comment is the most common way, and most people never think twice.
  Number 2, and just as important or more so:  My main concern in this sad incident is to take note of the fact that the present government “over-surveillance” since 9/11 is eating away at everybody’s interpersonal, interracial, inter-party trust in each other, and breaking down the very social structure of our democracy.  We are all more susceptible to this breakdown because of other divisive social malfunctions which now increase everyone’s personal fears and dreads—job, health, violence, lack of opportunity for education, religious differences, etc. The behavior of Zimmerman, though it may not be widely seen as such, to me is a clear example of this social disintegration, and the increase in white supremacist groups reported by civil rights organizations shows us that Zimmerman is a victim as well as Martin, although obviously he lives while Martin dies.
  Our laws and our government should be in the business of doing away with victimization, not condoning it. Victimization kills freedom. Excuse me if you think I am speaking out of turn or pontificating.  It’s my way of trying to save us all, even though it might be impossible.  I have to try. I welcome your response if you feel inclined.

hetero,

Didn’t Zimmerman report a suspicious stranger and why he thought Martin suspicious?  We, you and I, were not there.  As I said, I don’t know enough to assume Martin was not up to something or that Zimmerman was not telling the truth.  I do not know.  I asked how it is you do know and you keep answering with another question?  Does this not tell me you don’t want to answer the question?

“We don’t need you to do that” was good advise on the phone.  At the same time nothing bound Zimmerman to end his observations until the police arrived.  This was within his rights and done every day in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.  This does not tell us who began the physical violence.

IMax—- what was it that made Martin a “suspicious” person???????

what necessitated Zimmerman’s engaging the kid after he reported to the police
and was advised to back off and let them do the investigating of a kid walking
around?

hetero, - “Zimmerman went out of his way to instigate the interaction.”

-

I’m more than willing to accept there may be things about the situation I’m not aware of.  I simply asked how you know this. 

From local media reports I gather the area has a history of crimes against persons and property.  Patrolling the area and making a Neighborhood Watch Program highly visible is how neighborhoods across the country have, successfully it should be noted, combated these various problems.  Following the movements of “suspicious strangers” and calling local authorities is, by definition, what a Neighborhood Watch does to make it all work.  I cannot assume young Martin was up to no good and I can’t assume Zimmerman acted irrationally.  I feel I have not enough facts to date.

Gerard, intentionally or not, completely mangled my attempt to remind myself and others how this case is no different from others.  I cannot assume it was Martin or Zimmerman who began a violent confrontation.  So my asking why this particular case is receiving such national attention seems rational.  Gerard’s hostility toward a ration questions seem to suggest her mind is set on the matter.  Any attempts to ask otherwise should rightly be met with hostility.

I’m simply asking what I may be missing.  I couldn’t care less the opinions of others in this.  It’s too important to both the Martin and Zimmerman families.  And I know how unpopular it is to say this, but, what if turns out that it was Martin who was the aggressor?  Zimmerman’s life is in real danger and he’s not yet guilty of anything.

-

The roll of local law enforcement may be in question.  This is a very distinct and separate issue from who attacked who on the day.

Imax:

According to you, it’s always the victim’s fault—ONLY if the victim is non-white, of course.

If the black kid had killed the white guy the grand jury would have been all over him like flies on shit.

If he wasn’t killed in a holding tank or tossed out an upstairs window of the police station before he got there.

my answer is quite simple. Zimmerman went out of his way to instigate the
interaction.

hetero,

Where is the problem in simply answering my question?  It’s not a trick question.

How is it you know that Zimmerman caused the problem to begin with?

1.  Reasonable suspicion.
2.  Arrest and incarceration pending trial
3.  Investigation
4.  Allegation and prosecution
5.  Trial by jury of peers
6.  Adequate defense
7.  Judgment based on evidence
8.  Judgment plus issue of codified punishment
9.  Incarceration with expectation of fair treatment
10. Release upon having served time set by judgment
(At least that’s a rough outline of the order and content of things required by fair jurisprudence.
Anything short of that cannot be just, can it?)

you don’t accept that Z went after the kid and
confronted him w/o cause?

hetero,

How is it you know that Zimmerman caused the problem to begin with?

IMax—- you might do well to spare a mention of
Zimmerman’s responsibility for provoking the incident
w/o need.

People are speaking not just of legalities

hetero - “Zimmerman needlessly and recklessly started
something that ended with Martin dead. He bears the
responsibility for that.”

-

How is it you know that Zimmerman caused the problem to begin with?  I’ve read and listened to the few facts we all have and can honestly say I have no idea who is most culpable.  What is it that has you so convinced?

gerard,

Once again you mangled the point I was making and invented your own context.  I am only calling for a calm perspective.  Why turn that into something unrecognizable?

As an aside.  It’s generally desirable to look up and directly at another when you speak to them.  Speaking about someone while they stand before you looks petty and small.  It’s no way to make peaceful gestures.

gerard—- Zimmerman needlessly and recklessly started
something that ended with Martin dead. He bears the
responsibility for that.

But the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to
convict someone of a homicide and there doesn’t appear
to be enough evidence for that.

One way to shove an unjust situation under the rug is to call it a “horrible tragedy” and then minimize it by pointing out that there are many similar (nothing to get excited about) “horrible tragedies”
where (any and all) Americans (leaving out racial prejudices and class discriminations as though all Americans were all equal and it’s nothing extraordinary) and are “shot and killed under controversial circumstances where evidence is incomplete” (So sorry!  We didn’t know!) and “subject to dispute”—carefully failing to mention that the “dispute” amounts to a continuing civil war buried with its feet sticking out.
  But no matter.  Proceed with reasons (excuses?) of why it is impossible to simply charge a confessed,
gun-toting “stalker” with “murder or manslaughter”—but instead to wait “until further witnesses or information comes forth”.  (“Comes forth” as though it spontaneously walks in the door and knocks you flat?)  Then call for “calm deliberation” so that nobody will be allowed to notice the obvious racial discriminations involved in the “horrible tragedy” which people shouldn’t “push.”  (Hush, hush!  America is not a racist nation!  Florida is not a racist state!) 
  “Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude saying:  I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.  Then answered all the people and said, his blood be upon us, and upon our children..” (Matthew: 17: 24-25)

The Martin/Zimmerman incident is a horrible tragedy.  One tragedy of hundreds each year wherein Americans are shot and killed under controversial circumstances, where the evidence is incomplete and subject to dispute, often making impossible an immediate charge of murder or manslaughter, at least until further witnesses or information come forth.

It seems to me this situation calls for calm deliberation.  Which is the antithesis of the “white-Hispanic” on black narrative being pushed by many.