Hey, there! Log in / Register
Marching in memory of Trayvon Martin
By adamg on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 8:47pm
Video by Rene Filler.
Several hundred people marched from Dudley Square to Ruggles this evening to express their feelings on yesterday's verdict in the Zimmerman case.
Steve Annear has more notes, photos and video. Phillip W.D. Martin was also there.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Feelings and opinions
Have no place in the judicial system. Any loss of live is tragic, however every one has a right to both protect themselves (if it was that) and to a fair and unbiased trial.
Privilege
You've summed up the whole issue. If someone is saying, oh, the verdict was fair because our justice system delivered it, so I don't know what anyone's problem is, then they're swimming in unexamined privilege. Other people, particularly those of color, have repeatedly seen how unfair the "justice" system is and how it favors straight white males.
Um, ok...
But...
OK, here's my take: Mr. Martin is black. Mr. Zimmerman possibly has a black grandmother and is part Hispanic. Mr. Z is blacker than Homer Plessy. The jury is all female.
So, you say, "Other people, particularly those of color, have repeatedly seen how unfair the "justice" system is and how it favors straight white males."
OK, show me the straight white male bias here. Prosecutor is female and in my opinion couldn't have won this case with a machine gun, the judge is female and possibly almost mistrialed it, or at least left a wide open door for appeal, what is a 'creepy cracker' and an IT tech apparently got fired for telling the defense there were shenanigans with the cell phone.
What the fark is going on here?
OK, google (or use duckduckgo) Plessy V Fergusen, then Brown V. Board.
History lesson: I'm goddamn proud of this country, these were earth shattering cases. Our progress is paid for in real blood. Please, put this case in context. I feel bad for the kid, parents, etc, but justice was served. It went to court and a verdict was delivered.
Special rule on this forum
After what happened with the other Martin discussion: If you have a UHub account, post away. If you are posting anonymously, even if you fill in the "name" field, your comment won't be posted (except for the one person who posted something before I wrote this).
Thank You, Adam
Regardless of what you think about this case and justice and all that, the most sickening part of the past 24 hours has played out in the nation's Internet comments sections. Glad to have a sanctuary from that here.
Just wait and see if Holder's DOJ
decides to file charges against Zimmerman. Even The Nation's comments section will be invaded by racists.
photo confusion
The Pramas photos are from April. I thought folks looked a little overdressed for today's heat.
Glad to see so many people out there. Hoping things stay non-violent, but very, very angry. A fine line to walk.
Arrgh, that'll teach me not to look at dates
They were actually from April of last year! Same issue, same route, but, grr, sorry for any confusion. Steve Annear's Twitter stream, linked above, does have numerous photos actually taken today.
Angry about what?
An innocent young man got killed, perhaps. But the verdict sounded reasonable under the law and the testimony.
I think the guy was guilty of at least manslaughter in the court of public opinion, but from what I understood of the questions of law at hand, sounds like the jury came to a reasonable, fast and UNANIMOUS decision of not guilty.
Yeah, what bullshit, Stevil.
What did you think of the verdict in the Pring-Wilson case a few years back, Stevil? Very similar situation, to my mind. Guy starts fistfight, starts to lose fight, kills opponent. Justifiable? How? Manslaughter at the very least, in the court of reality, not just your smarmily described "court of public opinion."
Wasn't that in Mass
And this case was in FL? Very different laws.
Rather than criticize me, I'd be curious as to why you think Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given the forensic evidence and testimony under FL law. I personally think the guy's guilty - but that's my opinion - but from what I've heard if I were sitting on that jury, as guilty as I personally think he is, there wasn't enough evidence to convict him especially under FL law. What evidence did you see that those jurors reached their decision in error?
Stevil's right
Entirely true. The system worked exactly as it was intended.
Happy to concede the legal argument, as the law is a ass.
Misdirection
If you're on the jury, it's your show. You've got the statute, and the evidence. You need to come to a conclusion that is just, both for the victim and the perpetrator. Interpreting the law isn't just for John Roberts- if you're on a jury, this is your big chance to bring your own sense of justice to a criminal proceeding.
The majority of this trial seemed to revolve around the defense's skillful and elaborate misdirection. What would have mattered to me if I was on the jury was the beginning and the end of the conflict, facts that were undisputed: Zimmerman approached Martin with hostile intent (imagining him to be a criminal) and armed with a deadly weapon (the beginning); then, later Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin (the end). Who screamed, who was winning the fight, who was stoned, even who had previously assaulted a cop- all of little relevance, and just a lot of smoke and mirrors. If I was on the jury, I think I would have seen through all that, and voted to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. The elements that needed to be proven for manslaughter, even under backward Florida swamp laws, were only:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
The state proved this- indeed, these facts were almost undisputed. The jury got lost in the details of the fight Zimmerman instigated in his vigilante investigation. What's worse, I think the jury was specifically told to use, among other things, their "common sense". Apparently they left that at home.
Throughout the whole trial, I would have tried to imagine myself both as Trayvon Martin and as George Zimmerman, and considered the choices they made and their relative roles in the situation, and realized that it would be both morally and legally unjustifiable to let Zimmerman off scot-free for killing Martin.
George Zimmerman
Your statement is based purely on assumption, is it not? Sure, George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot that killed Treyvon Martin. But that's not the issue here. The INTENT was the issue.
Clearly, you feel as though Zimmerman set out to kill someone that night, however, there is no evidence suggesting that was his true motive, hence the entire basis for the trial.
If the state did such a fantastic job proving Zimmerman's guilt, then how is he a free man? Because I could certainly argue that the defense did a much better job at proving his innocence based on self defense.
What if, on the other hand, Treyvon orchestrated his own death by attacking George Zimmerman? What if George really was defending himself? Then the entire "intention to kill" theory goes out the window.
Sure, you could say maybe George shouldn't have continued following Treyvon in the first place. But the fact is that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch in an area that was being hit with regular crime. He was essentially doing his job in trying to protect his community, and wound up the most controversial figure in America.
This case was determined as
This case was determined as an interpretation of the ' Stand Your Ground ' law. So it is important to remember that an individual's perception that there was a credible threat to his safety, ect. , and the end result was deadly force used to repel the attacker. So there you go, if there is a general perception of criminality , be aware there are consequences, and they may be lawful. Perception is everything. There are only two people that know the true story , and only one is alive. But to some people , the truth dont matter anyway, its what they feel is right. The footballer , posted this , nice!
http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb...
I guess , if there is another Reginald Denney around , the scales can be balanced. Things are getting evil out there, behave everyone. If you want to burn down the town, there might not be anything or anyone left to bake the bread. Kasanof's still around ?
There's the rub
As far as I'm concerned. A "general perception of criminality" and "credible threat to his safety. Guy X is out for a walk. Guy Y decides that Guy X is a criminal and pursues him, against the advice of law officials. Guy X is--reasonably--scared of the guy following him and, just say, turns and confronts him. Guy Y shoots and kills him and is considered justified. Taking race out of it, in what scenario does this make sense at all? Why do we justify the fearful and lethal aggression of Zimmerman vs the fearful (and still unproven) aggression of the unarmed kid with the candy? If Trayvon had--in fear for his safety--turned and shot Zimmerman, wouldnt he have just been "standing his ground" by Florida logic?
Alas , that your perception.
Alas , that your perception. If you were X or Y , and there, in real time , would you have the same perception? That's what is the real deal. Think about it next time you are in that situation , and assess the threat.
If the tables had been turned....
...and Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman when defending himself from an aggressive (and threatening) pursuer, I would predict he would now be facing the death penalty. (Viz the black woman who fired a warning shot that injured no one -- and who was just sentenced to 20 years in prison: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stan... ).
"Turns and confronts him" You
"Turns and confronts him"
You mean, as in turning, attacking, straddling and pummeling George Zimmerman? I'd classify that as a little more than "turning and confronting".
According to Zimmerman.
According to Zimmerman.
More importantly, according
More importantly, according to the jury as well.
Most importantly...
According to the prosecutor as well. I mean, if they had any evidence otherwise they would have presented it...and they didn't.
So, if you're suggesting that the encounter had anything else happening, there's no evidence of that being the case. Thus, either the prosecutor is incompetent for not presenting evidence to the contrary. Or, the forensics were incompetent for not finding it.
Or..., as Occam's Razor suggests, it didn't happen.
Indeed , and also , GZ had
Indeed , and also , GZ had already communicated with the police, plausibly ,maybe ,could have , confronted the victim, and a WTF dialogue could have been exchanged , and escalated , in the time before GZ could have expected the police to arrive, and there you go. Only two people know what really happened. There is doubt , no doubt.Its all how you perceive it, but I dont think anybody would want the parents to lose the child, whatever flavor you are.
And a little less than "fatally shooting"
We will never know exactly what happened that night--agreed? What is clear is that "pummeling," even, God forbid "straddling" is very different from shooting someone through the heart. Martin was not looking for a fight, boosting someone's TV, or doing anything else to threaten anyone. Zimmerman was pursuing someone aggressively, carrying a gun. If he had not been carrying a deadly weapon or ignored the instructions of law enforcement, Martin would be alive and this whole tragic mess would have been avoided.
I dunno
I think stand your ground applies before an actual assault. Once the assault is committed, it's a self defense case. Once a person assaults another, I think, the decision is wether to use deadly force to resist an existing assault.
Ok, now, when is it assault and when is it battery? Is the assault just staring one down then verbally assaulting? Is the battery the trigger for the self defense?
Do they separate the assault and battery concepts in Florida?
Hell, I don't know. Glad I wasn't on that jury...
I think the stand your ground
I think the stand your ground , in a legal setting , means , you assess that fleeing only delays the inevitable , and you say , flock it ,I got my 45 on , and it aint the one Sheryl Crow sings about .Thats if you can carry legal, and have that law on your side.