The Killing of Treyvon Martin

[Ray G.]

Not saying that racial motives are at play, but it is silly to think that it is less likely just because Zimmerman may be "ethnic", or to put more bluntly, that he isn't white. Non-white people can be racist against other non-white people.

Yeah, of course, but what we have here is a white police chief protecting a hispanic shooter of a black teen. There's definitely an element of "protect your own" in there, but like I said, it seems more like the Chief was covering for a friend.

Either way, there definitely was racism that cropped up afterwards, when the story broke nationwide.

[Fourthman]

Yeah, of course, but what we have here is a white police chief protecting a hispanic shooter of a black teen. There's definitely an element of "protect your own" in there, but like I said, it seems more like the Chief was covering for a friend.

Either way, there definitely was racism that cropped up afterwards, when the story broke nationwide.

My thought is that it's not so much that the department showed an active interest in protecting Zimmerman as they did a passive lack of interest in ensuring that a potentially innocent man wasn't murdered. Not so much conspiracy as incompetence.

[Ray G.]

My thought is that it's not so much that the department showed an active interest in protecting Zimmerman as they did a passive lack of interest in ensuring that a potentially innocent man wasn't murdered. Not so much conspiracy as incompetence.

I can see that. Good point.

[dasNdanger]

My thought is that it's not so much that the department showed an active interest in protecting Zimmerman as they did a passive lack of interest in ensuring that a potentially innocent man wasn't murdered. Not so much conspiracy as incompetence.

I agree, but I will add that it wasn't just incompetence, but indifference, too.



das

[Jason California]

I agree, but I will add that it wasn't just incompetence, but indifference, too.

das

He covered that with passive lack of interest.

[dasNdanger]

He covered that with passive lack of interest.

Doh!

This is why I will never, ever use an e-book - I cannot comprehend what I read from a computer screen. I miss too many words.



das

[HOOKS]

George Zimmerman('s legal fund) has an official website and Facebook initiated by his defense team:

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase

Some of the comments:

"Hang in there George, you did the right thing"

"We don't live far from you George. So if you still want to live in FL and close to the same area...you can move in right beside us! I would love to have a neighbor that loved us and would want to protect us just as we would do the exact same thing for him!"

"George Zimmerman is a good man who STOOD HIS GROUND....and won!"

"With alot of people u do have to take that stance. If u dont show that u are willing to protect urself and or others...they can smell weakness and will attack! if the kid was really up to no good...and he was checking out ur house...u would have been happy with someone like george to protect ur family. We cant have it both ways. And so what he was watching where the kid was going...he wasnt chasing him with gun in hand! This kid was a trouble maker...and needed to be watched by his parents but they let him go off by himself and he wasnt just walking by and got attacked. He was up to something. Otherwise he would have just walked back to his dads and let his father know what happened."

"I chose to donate when CNN convicted you One of the Best contributions I have ever made..."

And then there's this:


"The law is sound. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves. I have no control over how those laws are enforced or prosecuted. Sorry..."

[Slewo.O]

Can't we just feed these people to sharks and let them sort it out? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

[dasNdanger]

I'm not sure of the context of this picture, but I will say this about it (and the stand your ground law). One reason the law was created was to protect women of domestic violence from prosecution if they killed their husband in self-defense. Since domestic violence happens at home the Castle Rule doesn't quite apply to women defending themselves against an abusive mate. The stand your ground law provides for that, and in my opinion this is the messsage of that picture - a woman has the right to defend herself and her kids against an abusive mate (I interpret the picture as saying, "I'm through with being abused. I'm leaving, I'm taking the kids, and you are not going to stop me").

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that picture is about domestic abuse and doesn't have any relation to the Martin case.


das

[Fourthman]

I'm not sure of the context of this picture, but I will say this about it (and the stand your ground law). One reason the law was created was to protect women of domestic violence from prosecution if they killed their husband in self-defense. Since domestic violence happens at home the Castle Rule doesn't quite apply to women defending themselves against an abusive mate. The stand your ground law provides for that, and in my opinion this is the messsage of that picture - a woman has the right to defend herself and her kids against an abusive mate (I interpret the picture as saying, "I'm through with being abused. I'm leaving, I'm taking the kids, and you are not going to stop me").

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that picture is about domestic abuse and doesn't have any relation to the Martin case.


das

If it doesn't expressly say it's about domestic abuse, then it's open to interpretation. It's the ambiguity of what's written on (and with) the picture that makes it frightening to those of us who are clearly not represented by the picture.