Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[AngryMuffin]

No I was responding to a previous poster who referenced racial profiling with the underling narrative that it is racist.

I am simply supporting the face that racial profiling has more to do with the behavior of the people being profiled than it does the color of their skin.  I used indisputable FBI murder statistics by race and population percentage.

Now we have indisputable fact that a specific group of people murder at an astonishingly higher rate than other groups of people.  Which is why they are being profiled.  Stop the crime and the profiling will also stop.

Let me give you a real world example of this in action.

In 1941 the Japanese bombed Hawaii. The Japanese at the time built a very aggressive culture of conquest and preemptive war.  They were assholes.  The majority of most American's toward Japan and the Japanese was negative. Why was it negative toward the Japanese and not the Swiss? Because the Swiss didn't do anything to American and the Japanese were running around the globe killing and the swiss were not.  We judged them based on their behavior. 

Fast forward a bit and the Japanese change their culture to one of industry, technology and peaceful co-existence with other countries and what is the general attitude toward the Japanese? I'd say good to great. Why did it change? Their behavior - they stopped killing everyone in their path and attacking their neighbors. 

Young black males commit more crime per capita than any other racial group. Fact. Thats why they are profiled. It's not racist.  It's math.  If middle age Amish men perpetrated most of the crime they would receive the most profiling.  But they don't so they aren't. 

You can't make this very straightforward connection between cause and effect?

Not utter bullshit. Indisputable fact.

FBI Murder stats by race: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

White murderers: 4,729
Black murderers: 5,486

Whites represent 72% of the population
Blacks represent 12% of the population

If you do the math on a per-capita basis black people murder 7 to 1 vs white people.

This isn't racist. It's math. Police officers know this stat because they live it.

Thats why they profile young african males and the don't profile equally brown young men from India.

You can bury your head in the sand and surround yourself with people that will further support the version of reality you want to believe.  Or you can look at things in an unemotional objective way and understand things for the way they really are.

Only be choosing the latter can you address and fix a real problem that exists.

So we just watched a non black person get away with murder, and part of his defense was that he was scared of the black kid, and you are trying to contradict the idea that black people are more likely to get charged, arrested and convicted than other races?

Well ok.

If you don't see the basic problem with your argument, then talking it through is probably not going to help you.

[AngryMuffin]

It's not racism it's math.  And it's math that you can't dispute which is why you yell racism.  It's easier to yell and label than it is to discuss esp when the facts support the other guy's argument.

Black youths are killing each other at an astonishing rate every day in America. This is a fact. It's not debatable. Why is this happening? What is the cause? What can we do to reduce it?

I want to stop the senseless killing of young men - and that makes me a racist?

By the way muffin top, thanks for injecting the racism into a thread about gun laws.

Its interesting that for you, the murder of this child is about how all these blacks keep killing people because of the blacks and their lack of character.

and by 'interesting', i pretty much mean 'stomach churning'.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well you can thank Angela Corey for the decision to overcharge (her normal M.O.) murder, which is what actually got this fellow acquitted. The system didn't fail, the prosecution simply failed to prove their case.

[ronchamblin]

I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force.  I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.

This is a somewhat complex case.  It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free.  It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.

To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy.  Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence.  Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened?  Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.

unarmed dead boy.


armed man who says he shot him.

its pretty clear ron.

It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.

TM was minding his own business.

Yes, TM was not armed with a gun.  But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.

So.... where is the clarity?  I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened.  It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened.  Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?

Was it really murder?  How does anyone know at this point?  Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business.  But what happened ..... really?

Yeah, nothing like preemptively defending yourself by murdering a child armed with skittles.

Its a proud day for all of us.

Again.... did Zimmerman murder TM?  If you say so, how do you know of this?  Do you have clear evidence as to what happened ... so that you can feel confident that it was murder?  Were you there?  Did you see something nobody else saw? 

How can a man be sent to jail on assumptions that something happened, something about which there is no clear evidence? 

This is the kind of thinking which allows some to believe in heaven.  They believe without evidence to support the belief.  Do you believe that Zimmerman murdered TM, even though you have no evidence of it... no proof of it? 

TM was killed.  Without evidence as to exactly what happened, that's all anyone can say about it.  Anything else is from someone's imagination.  You don't put people in jail as a result of imagining events. 

All the discussion here on this forum, and in the media, should have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not-guilty.  It's over.  At this point, until clear evidence arrives to support a murder, he cannot be proven guilty.  He is free to go.

The discussion now might focus on the fundamental causes of the tragedy ... which has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt.   

The two fellows were in a situation which had the potential to become confrontational.  Some people tend to escalate potential situations, forcing to hostile confrontations -- other people tend to avoid escalating, giving... backing down to avoid hostility.  The former don't live as long as the latter.

Both Zimmerman and TM made the decision to escalate, to confront, to become physical, with the result that one killed the other.  If only "one" of them had run or avoided escalating the situation, they would both be alive.  Unfortunately, both made the mistake of escalating the situation into a violent physical confrontation.  They were both stupid.  One died because of their stupidity.  End of story.

[AngryMuffin]

One more thought on profiling and racism.  I believe profiling is race neutral and based on crime stats.

-- Most serial murderers are middle age white men generally loners.  The weirder and more sexual the more likely it seems to be a white guy in his 40s.  And the cops will usually start the search with middle age white guys.  This must be racist. The cops clearly hate middle age white guys.

-- Most infant abductions are perpetrated by childless females. Thats why the cops never look for older black men for these types of crimes.

-- An Amish man has never hijacked or attempted to hijack a commercial airliner.  Which is why they never profile the Amish? But they do profile middle eastern men.  Because the FBI is racist? Or the FBI knows that middle eastern men do most of the hijacking?

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with statistical probabilities and past behavior of specific groups of people.
.
[/quote]

Hmm. Most criminal money launderers and banking fraud perpetrators are white men.

So perhaps white people shouldnt be allowed to handle money.

And if they threaten to handle it, maybe we should shoot them.

I see your line of reasoning muffintop. 

I wonder if you do.

[AngryMuffin]

I will never attack someone so this shouldn't be a problem.

Yes.  If a more youthful - but also larger and stronger person is attacking me it makes me happy that the law recognizes my basic human right of self defense.

Wonderful.

Perhaps a public spirited octagenarian will shoot you to death at some point.

Give Chamblin a year or so.

[AngryMuffin]

You haven't made one substantial argument for your point of view. Thats because you brought skittles to a gunfight.

I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force.  I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.

This is a somewhat complex case.  It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free.  It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.

To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy.  Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence.  Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened?  Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.

unarmed dead boy.


armed man who says he shot him.

its pretty clear ron.

It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.

TM was minding his own business.

Yes, TM was not armed with a gun.  But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.

So.... where is the clarity?  I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened.  It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened.  Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?

Was it really murder?  How does anyone know at this point?  Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business.  But what happened ..... really?

Yeah, nothing like preemptively defending yourself by murdering a child armed with skittles.

Its a proud day for all of us.

Again.... did Zimmerman murder TM?  If you say so, how do you know of this?  Do you have clear evidence as to what happened ... so that you can feel confident that it was murder?  Were you there?  Did you see something nobody else saw? 

How can a man be sent to jail on assumptions that something happened, something about which there is no clear evidence? 

This is the kind of thinking which allows some to believe in heaven.  They believe without evidence to support the belief.  Do you believe that Zimmerman murdered TM, even though you have no evidence of it... no proof of it? 

TM was killed.  Without evidence as to exactly what happened, that's all anyone can say about it.  Anything else is from someone's imagination.  You don't put people in jail as a result of imagining events. 

All the discussion here on this forum, and in the media, should have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not-guilty.  It's over.  At this point, until clear evidence arrives to support a murder, he cannot be proven guilty.  He is free to go.

The discussion now might focus on the fundamental causes of the tragedy ... which has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt.   

The two fellows were in a situation which had the potential to become confrontational.  Some people tend to escalate potential situations, forcing to hostile confrontations -- other people tend to avoid escalating, giving... backing down to avoid hostility.  The former don't live as long as the latter.

Both Zimmerman and TM made the decision to escalate, to confront, to become physical, with the result that one killed the other.  If only "one" of them had run or avoided escalating the situation, they would both be alive.  Unfortunately, both made the mistake of escalating the situation into a violent physical confrontation.  They were both stupid.  One died because of their stupidity.  End of story.

yawn.  do you promise its the end of your story?

[AngryMuffin]

My opinion is based in indisputable fact - fact which you disagree with - but can't dispute. 

That fact is young black males murder at a rate of 7 to 1 vs whites.  That indisputable fact is why they are profiled.  If old Asian women were doing most of the killing then the police would profile old Asian women.

It is literally that simple.

I want to stop the senseless killing of young men - and that makes me a racist?

Im sure I cant tell you what makes you a racist.

But you sure are using this child's murder to air your half baked opinions about black people.

[AngryMuffin]

I have and either you're wrong or you lack the mental horsepower to refute me. Or both.

You've resorted to name calling. I've used real world examples and crime stats.

There really isn't much left to say. Unless you'd like to offer up an opposing point of view that isn't a personal insult.

I need to get some stuff done in the real world.  This is entertaining but not productive.  If you can come up with a well reasoned point of view we'll continue this later.

You haven't made one substantial argument for your point of view. Thats because you brought skittles to a gunfight.

I havent had anything substantial to argue against, is the clear reason.

And besides, what else would you bring juveniles in the middle of trying to think of cool ways to get away with murder besides candy?

So, why not put the plastic squirt guns away, kids?

[AngryMuffin]

The loser of Internet arguments will choose one (or both of these courses);

-- Personal insults
-- Critique of spelling and grammar

It is literally that simple.

Well we can definitely agree that you are that simple.

[thelakelander]

^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?

[ronchamblin]

^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?

The statistics might be true Lake, but there is a whole discussion waiting, as to why they are as they are.  There are definitely some structured... institutionally based social forces and habits which perpetuate the fundamental causes of those statistics.  But that's a whole discussion in itself.

It amazes me that some people seem to be blind to these fundamental forces or structures in society which maintains the statistics.  They seem to be comfortable in their ignorance.  Why gain knowledge and improve one's perception if one is comfortable in ignorance and apathy?

     
(from Stephene Dare .. to Ron)   yawn.  do you promise its the end of your story?

Stephen, your tendency to avoid constructive contributions to a challenging discussion is showing again.  As I've often said.... you descend to denigrating comments when things get over your head.  Well... let's see, what will be your next effort to lower the quality of this forum?  I'm will wait patiently for some additional nonsense from you. 

[thelakelander]

This is a somewhat complex case.  It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free.  It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.

To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy.  Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence.  Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened?  Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.

unarmed dead boy.


armed man who says he shot him.

its pretty clear ron.

It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.

TM was minding his own business.

Yes, TM was not armed with a gun.  But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.

So.... where is the clarity?  I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened.  It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened.  Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?

There's no conflict if an armed GZ doesn't stalk/provoke TM.  The fact that a random guy can carry a firearm, provoke an altercation, shoot the victim when the victim starts to kick his ass, and walk away free from doing any prison time is a problem, IMO.  This doesn't mean the system is broken or the jury didn't make the right decision based on what they were tasked to do.  However, it does indicate that we may need to change some of the laws on our books that allow morons to get away with acts like this on innocent people minding their own business.

Was it really murder?  How does anyone know at this point?  Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business.  But what happened ..... really?

If TM is initially minding his own business (which the facts prove), who starts the acts that lead to a conflict, which ultimately leads to the death of a kid that was out to get skittles and an iced tea?  It shouldn't matter what happened in the actual fight.  The guy starting the entire thing shouldn't be painted as a victim who gets to walk away free for killing someone when he provoked the entire altercation.  If that isn't manslaughter, I don't know what is.

[AKIRA]

Provoked....?  There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed. 

[thelakelander]

Provoked....?  There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.

It was proven that GZ stalked/followed the kid.  Maybe it's just me and the experience of growing up as a black male in a different environment that many of our readers may not be familiar with...but if someone you don't know (who clearly isn't a police officer), follows you in the dark, you're being provoked and being put in a situation where you're on the defensive.  If not, in typical circumstances, your ass is as good as mugged, jumped or whatever.