Zimmerman Trial

[Bitani]

Racism is definitely still around.  Stereotyping is pretty much tolerated.  Even though things are better than the past, it makes me sick.

What's the problem with stereotyping? Stereotypes form for a reason.

[Tigerpaw]

What's the problem with stereotyping? Stereotypes form for a reason.

 

You can't judge a book by it's cover.  I'd say it becomes a problem when it goes anywhere beyond lighthearted conversation.  

 

Why do stereotypes form? Examples?

[Bitani]

You can't judge a book by it's cover.  I'd say it becomes a problem when it goes anywhere beyond lighthearted conversation.  

 

Why do stereotypes form? Examples?

A lot of the time you can. It's a psychological defense, actually.

 

How many black people do you know that don't like chicken?

 

How many [real] Asian people have you met that haven't been smart?

(Assuming you know a dumb Asian, how many salon parlors that you've been into accidentally have been filled to the brim with Asians? Even an Asian friend of mine's parents own one.)

 

How many Mexican construction workers have you seen?

 

How many non-white people do you know that like NASCAR?

 

I personally enjoy stereotypes. The vast majority of them are completely true.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Bitani

[Tigerpaw]

A lot of the time you can. It's a psychological defense, actually.

 

How many black people do you know that don't like chicken? How many people, in general, don't like chicken?

 

How many [real] Asian people have you met that haven't been smart? lol, wut is a [real] Asian?  Do you mean 1st generation in the U.S.?  Asia is a big place...not sure.  

 

How many Mexican construction workers have you seen?  Lots of general labor/construction.  It's a common route for immigrants to work in labor.

 

How many non-white people do you know that like NASCAR? This is a good one.  I could care less about NASCAR, so I may never know.

 

I personally enjoy stereotypes. The vast majority of them are completely true.

 

What equals a true stereotype?  If it applies to 50% of the population?

[Bitani]

What equals a true stereotype?  If it applies to 50% of the population?

If it applies to a certain race more than it does to the general population. You didn't really disprove any of my questions, either. Black people like chicken way more than the average person, Asian people frequently score better on testing, the Mexican construction thing is a toss-up but there is definitely a LOT of Mexican labor, and I know not a single non-white NASCAR fan.

 

I really don't think stereotypes are even a bad thing in the first place.

[Tigerpaw]

If it applies to a certain race more than it does to the general population. You didn't really disprove any of my questions, either. Black people like chicken way more than the average person, Asian people frequently score better on testing, the Mexican construction thing is a toss-up but there is definitely a LOT of Mexican labor, and I know not a single non-white NASCAR fan.

 

I really don't think stereotypes are even a bad thing in the first place.

 

I meant what % of a race is required for a bonafide stereotype?

 

You don't think negative stereotypes are a bad thing?

[Bitani]

I meant what % of a race is required for a bonafide stereotype?

 

You don't think negative stereotypes are a bad thing?

Considering it's a thing built by society, it's not like there's a certain %. It's all a matter of when people start noticing enough for their minds to say "Well, look, there's a white guy getting on at an RTA stop. That's rare."

 

Negative stereotypes are negative. Positive stereotypes are positive. Both are true to a certain degree, whether they're bad or good. It's human nature.

 

Refer to my "how to tell black people apart" post with pizza earlier. If you look at ANY black person and think they're on welfare, you're racist. If you're able to make an assumption of a black person by what they're wearing, how they talk, and how they handle themselves then you are stereotyping. As long as there's not any prejudices involved, stereotypes are useful.

[Tigerpaw]

Yes, that job made me a tinge more hating of ghetto blacks because of tips. 4/5 of my stiffs were from black people - objective reasoning as to why they're putting their societal opinion of blacks on themselves.) Even some of the non are good people, but that's a minority.

 

I get it.  A minority of the people that don't look like you, are good people in your eyes.

[Bitani]

I get it.  A minority of the people that don't look like you, are good people in your eyes.

"some of the non are good people, but that's a minority."

 

Which was referring to non-ghetto black people. Not non-whites in general. Blacks are really the only race that I dislike most of, and if you call that "racist," then you're lying to yourself. Can you honestly say you would love to sit there and chat with the people at the RTA stop around the Dayton mall?

 

It's easy to tell ghetto black from black, and the non-ghetto blacks are usually very good people. Why? Because the generation before them, or the generation before that generation, made the decision to not be like their ghetto black peers and make something of themselves. From there it becomes a respectable family tree.

 

Also note that I said I hate white trash as well. You're putting words into my mouth.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Bitani

[Tigerpaw]

 Blacks are really the only race that I dislike most of, and if you call that "racist," then you're lying to yourself.

 

I'm done here.  No need to respond.

[Bitani]

I'm done here.  No need to respond.

I would say you're being crass with your responses, taking EVERYthing you've quoted in the last few posts out of the original context, but you'd probably see "You're being crass" and insinuate I said "You ass" and insulted you. 

 

Thank you for being done. The complete inability to comprehend what you're reading and intelligently analyze it is bewildering.

[smashweights]

There's a big difference between a nigger and a black person.

 

I couldn't resist

 

 

Also a perfect example of the racial double standard.  Can you imagine a white guy performing this routine?

 

Edited July 1, 2013 by smashweights

[Bitani]

I couldn't resist

 

Also a perfect example of the racial double standard.  But damn if Chris Rock isn't right.

This and magley's post on the last page.. I love it, haha.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Bitani

[mfs81]

The videos above are great videos!

[MidgetTodd]

I love chicken and own every Tupac CD released and 3 of which are in my truck changer right now, what does that make me?

I hate watermelon and grape drink and and David Allen Coe and Johnny Cash are in the other 2 slots in my truck changer, what does that make me now?

I love Grits and Bonfires with strippers and beer and Kid Rock is in the 6th spot in the changer, now what am I?

Stereotypes can be dead on or way off. I don't fit any.

Carry on

[Bad324]

OJ did it cause he's black

[Scruit]

Some of the talking heads are speculating that the defense won't even put on a case - they will allow the case to rest with the prosecution - so sure are they that the prosecution's case is hopeless.

 

The Martin family attorney said their clients are now prepared for 'any outcome' of the trial, which suggests to me that they are also recognizing how poorly the case is going for the prosecution.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Scruit

[DerekClouser]

Roughly translated as "I'm not looking at the evidence, but I am making a conclusion regardless.

 

If you don't care enough to look at the evidence then your opinion on guilt or innocence is worthless.

 

I have been watching the liveblogs of the trials and some of the testimony live.  

 

 - 2 witnesses put Z on top

 -- One of those said she knows it was Z on the top because the person on top was bigger and she guesses M's size from the 12yo pic on the news.  M was actually 5-6" taller than Z, making M the bigger person, making her testimony support Z instead

 -- One said Z shot martin in the back three times.  This is obviously false, rendering her testimony useless.

 -- One witness claimed to have not formed an opinion have any bias on the case, yet she signed a petition to "Prosecute the murderer of TM".  Her testimony is now highly suspect.

 

- One prosecution witness definitely put Z on the bottom in an MMA "Ground and Pound" based upon "the guy on the bottom had lighter skin and was wearing red" and said it was Z who was calling for help

 

- The responding officer testified that Z said; "I was calling for help but nobody came to help"

 

- The phsysican's assistant said that whatever Z did to stop his attack probably saved his life

 

- Rachel Jeantel testified that she heard the scuffle start, but that was 4 minutes before the fatal shot - she cannot account for those 4 minutes.  Z's story is that he went looking for a street sign or address to tell the police where he was but couldn't find one for minutes.  A neighbor witness said there are no visible signs or street addresses near where the attack happened.

 

- Z states he stopped following once the operator told him to, but then the operator twice asked him where M was, where he was going.  Z stated he go out of the car to find a street address but couldn't find one until he walked to the next road over.  Once he told the operator the address he walked back to his truck and M attacked him from behind.

 

You appear to have a non-guilty attitude towards the case. Is there anything in any of the testimonies that hurt Zimmerman? I'm just curious as the other side of the spectrum.

 

All race aside, on the topic of the trial at hand.

 

The rule of thumb is  beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Through all the testimony I've read and heard, it appears the testimonies of the prosecution side has failed to completely be truthful or able to be verified. This inheritently should conclude reasonable doubt. Whether he did it unwarrantly or did it in pure self defense, I don't think you can find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in defense of everyone, he should be acquitted.

 

As for all the racial talk, I won't add to that fire as it will get us nowhere in society.  I follow a general rule of thumb in that topic. It's the bully principle, if you don't let the bully think what he is doing is bothering you, he'll eventually stop.

 

PS. I love chicken, watermelon, and rap music. I also like swimming. What does that make me?

Edited July 1, 2013 by DerekClouser

[Pokey]

I think what will more than likely be the outcome, is that Z appears to have done nothing against the law, if TM did in fact attack Z and things went down as Z said, you must find him not guilty of manslaughter. Now what he did do was not a very wise decision, and not the best judgement call, but not against the law by any means. The media and the scum of the earth Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, as well as the Black Panther Party turned this into a racial issue. President Obama had no business being in the most powerful position as an American, and adding into the fact that he is African American to go and say something as stupid as "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon". That in itself was a very powerful statement that riled many folks up, so once again BHO screwed up. Z profiled plain and simple, he did nothing more or less than a police officer would have done or even maybe one of us in that situation, profiling is what we all do, it is just taken to a whole other level when the word "racial" is put before the word. I have a good friend that is in law enforcement, he said that if you do not want to be treated like a knucklehead, don't act or look the part of a knucklehead. Z will be acquitted, and unfortunately there will be some negative consequences because of that.

[Scruit]

1) You appear to have a non-guilty attitude towards the case. Is there anything in any of the testimonies that hurt Zimmerman? I'm just curious as the other side of the spectrum.

 

All race aside, on the topic of the trial at hand.

 

2) The rule of thumb is  beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Through all the testimony I've read and heard, it appears the testimonies of the prosecution side has failed to completely be truthful or able to be verified. This inheritently should conclude reasonable doubt. Whether he did it unwarrantly or did it in pure self defense, I don't think you can find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in defense of everyone, he should be acquitted.

 

3) As for all the racial talk, I won't add to that fire as it will get us nowhere in society.  I follow a general rule of thumb in that topic. It's the bully principle, if you don't let the bully think what he is doing is bothering you, he'll eventually stop.

 

4) PS. I love chicken, watermelon, and rap music. I also like swimming. What does that make me?

 

(I added numbers above to organize my responses)

 

 

1) I maintain two different opinions on these types of trials...  Did they do it?  and Will they be convicted? 

 

I vacillated at first as the evidence rolled in sporadically.  Anyone who has a CCW has a different understanding of deadly force self defense than most.  We understand terms like means, motive, opportunity, duty to flee, duty to not escalate.  I recognized early on that in order for the shooting to be ruled self defense they would have to clearly demonstrate that Z believed M was able and willing to use deadly force and that Z was innocent in starting the fight.

 

This is a complex case with many facets - it's like a fractal, the closer you look at individual points the more those points break out into complex sub-points...

 

So, based on the evidence so far I have yet to see anything that refutes Z's version of events.  I currently believe he is factually innocent - but am open to new evidence.   I also believe that he will be found not guilty based upon the progress of the trial.

 

 

2) There are two different standards of evidence at play.   The prosecution must prove Z guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".   That is a very high standard.    Z must prove he was acting in self-defense "By preponderance".  Which means "is it more likely than not that he was defending himself."     The two questions for the jury are:

- "Who caused the physical fight?"  Did Z do something to make M think we was under imminent risk physical harm.  Following is not enough, it would have to be something like Z getting within fighting range and taking a fighting posture.  If the jury believes Z caused the physical fight then they may conclude that Z is not able to use deadly force, therefore the self-defense claim fails.

-  *IF* the jury believes that Z did nothing illegal and that it was M that caused the fight, then they have to ask if it was reasonable for Z to fear that he was likely to die or suffer serious injury.

 

If both of those questions qo Z's way, then he would have to be acquitted of both Murder 2 AND the lesser-included-offense of Manslaughter.

 

 

3) Even Martin's family is saying (now) that Z didn't profile M *racially*.  They say he was profiled *criminally* (ie, Z assumed M was a criminal and treated him like a criminal).  I'm no fan of racism.  Every human is equal.  I do understand that public pressure has changed the course of this case - I just hope that it's influence stops at the door of the courtroom - both ways (I don't want an innocent man to be a scapegoat based solely upon the race of his victim, nor do I want an guilty man acquitted based solely upon the race of his victim)

 

 

 

4) I'm English and I like tea.  Haters gonna hate.

[Pokey]

 

3) Even Martin's family is saying (now) that Z didn't profile M *racially*.  They say he was profiled *criminally* (ie, Z assumed M was a criminal and treated him like a criminal).  I'm no fan of racism.  Every human is equal.  I do understand that public pressure has changed the course of this case - I just hope that it's influence stops at the door of the courtroom - both ways (I don't want an innocent man to be a scapegoat based solely upon the race of his victim, nor do I want an guilty man acquitted based solely upon the race of his victim)

 

 

 

Very well said........

[Scruit]

Is there anything in any of the testimonies that hurt Zimmerman? I'm just curious as the other side of the spectrum.

 

 

Saved this for a separate response

 

There's plenty that hurt  Z in this trial:

 

- Z is on record as having taken MMA classes 3xwk in 2011.  I want to know how long he trained for and how proficient he became.  It makes me wonder if he should have been able to escape a mount from a lighter person.  I did 6mo of jiu-jitsu and there's not a single person in our class who is 50lbs lighter than me that I cannot escape mount from underneath.  The difference is that the well-trained fighters who are lighter than me will be able to capitalize on me escaping mount - that is, I may be able to roll them, but we'll land with me in am armbar or side control.   If he turns out to have 2 years of MMA training then I'd ask if he REALLY felt his life was in danger.  If he did MMA for a few weeks then quit then his training is already long gone.

 

- The audio from Rachel Jeantel where Z allegedly asked; "what are you doing here?"   If the jury believes this then it will go bad very quickly. 

 

- The fact that Z followed M after being asked not to.  Not illegal, but not wise either.  I have been in Z's shoes before reporting a crime in progress - and when I asked if I should try to stop it the cops said no, and I listened to them.

 

- Testimony from one witness that she heard two people running, one after the other close together.  Z "following" M is not a violent act that justifies M attacking Z - however if Z was "running" after M then that could easily justify M defending himself.

 

- Z was on the bottom in some testimony, and on the top in others.  It will take keen focus to separate those things.  Z was on top after the shooting, and M was face down - if the testimony that Z was on top is consistent with that then Z is ok, but if any believable testimony put Z on top before then then it would be inconsistent with Z's claim that he was punched to the ground then was on the bottom from that point on.

 

- Any inconsistency between the story he told each police officer and the version he tells now will be scrutinized.  If what he told the cop 5 mins after the shooting matches all the evidence now then he's golden.  If his testimony has evolved then he has some major explaining to do.

 

- The injuries he suffered were superficial.  Although you do not have to allow yourself to be seriously injured before you can use deadly force in self defense, many jurors will ask if the blows that caused those injuries could really have made him believe his life was in danger - especially someone who has "trained in MMA 3x a week"

 

 

These are just the raw points, and they have been addressed at trial so far...  But you asked for testimony/evidence that could hurt Z...

[r1crusher]

You appear to have a non-guilty attitude towards the case. 

 

And he should along with everyone in this country because you should be innocent until proven guilty but we all know that's not entirely how the system works at times.

[DerekClouser]

And he should along with everyone in this country because you should be innocent until proven guilty but we all know that's not entirely how the system works at times.

Agreed, I was merely asking because he was only posting the testimonies favoring Zimmerman. I was curious what was going on for the prosecution.

 

(I added numbers above to organize my responses)

 

 

1) I maintain two different opinions on these types of trials...  Did they do it?  and Will they be convicted? 

 

I vacillated at first as the evidence rolled in sporadically.  Anyone who has a CCW has a different understanding of deadly force self defense than most.  We understand terms like means, motive, opportunity, duty to flee, duty to not escalate.  I recognized early on that in order for the shooting to be ruled self defense they would have to clearly demonstrate that Z believed M was able and willing to use deadly force and that Z was innocent in starting the fight.

 

This is a complex case with many facets - it's like a fractal, the closer you look at individual points the more those points break out into complex sub-points...

 

So, based on the evidence so far I have yet to see anything that refutes Z's version of events.  I currently believe he is factually innocent - but am open to new evidence.   I also believe that he will be found not guilty based upon the progress of the trial.

 

 

2) There are two different standards of evidence at play.   The prosecution must prove Z guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".   That is a very high standard.    Z must prove he was acting in self-defense "By preponderance".  Which means "is it more likely than not that he was defending himself."     The two questions for the jury are:

- "Who caused the physical fight?"  Did Z do something to make M think we was under imminent risk physical harm.  Following is not enough, it would have to be something like Z getting within fighting range and taking a fighting posture.  If the jury believes Z caused the physical fight then they may conclude that Z is not able to use deadly force, therefore the self-defense claim fails.

-  *IF* the jury believes that Z did nothing illegal and that it was M that caused the fight, then they have to ask if it was reasonable for Z to fear that he was likely to die or suffer serious injury.

 

 

I can't speak on Florida law, but I know in Ohio they just modified CCW and self defense to innocent before proven guilty. In Ohio, DA's now must prove you aren't acting in self defense rather then you having to prove you were acting in self defense.  Anyone know if this is the same in Florida?

[Scruit]

Agreed, I was merely asking because he was only posting the testimonies favoring Zimmerman. I was curious what was going on for the prosecution.

 

 

I can't speak on Florida law, but I know in Ohio they just modified CCW and self defense to innocent before proven guilty. In Ohio, DA's now must prove you aren't acting in self defense rather then you having to prove you were acting in self defense.  Anyone know if this is the same in Florida?

 

Please explain the recent changes...??

 

Self Defense is one of the "Standard Defenses" to all crimes that are not Strict Liability, and it nullifies the Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) that is a required part of the prosecution.

 

I think you are referencing Castle Doctrine wherein there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who breaks in to your home or car without permission is there to do you harm.  This places more burden on the prosecutor as they now have to prove that you knew you were not in danger, rather than you proving that you were.  I believe the threshold is still preponderance, though...

 

Florida goes one stop further and creates the "Stand your Ground" law which states that you do NOT have the duty to flee, and can meet deadly force where and when it is used against you.  This is not relevant in this trial, though, as Zimmerman claims he had no opportunity to flee.