Now we have racist Trayvon T shirts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:Reportedly there is now a witness that saw T on top of Z, punching him and Z screaming. The witness ran upstairs to call police and in that period saw that T was now on the ground having been shot.

Just like one can ask "why did Zimmerman shoot Martin?" to undermine Zimmerman's destractors, one can ask "why did Martin beat Zimmerman?" to undermine Zimmerman supporters. The problem Zimmerman's detractors face is that while following someone around for a short period and then saying something insulting to them is mean and stupid, it not against the law. Punching someone down and then continuing to beat them, while perhaps an understandable reaction in this case, is against the law.

And finally, shooting someone who you reasonably believe means to kill you or cause you great bodily harm is not against the law.

**Ahtman**

Speaking of fact free zones, where is your evidence he only insulted him? You've said it several times now but if we are being objective we can't say anything since we don't know if he physically accosted him, only insulted him, or put his finger an inch from his face and said "I'm not touching you".

**generalgrog**

Manchu wrote:Nah, the lesson is "if you see someone suspicious in you're neighborhood, lock the door and call the police rather than grabbing a firearm, following them, and confronting them."

This is it, in a nutshell.

Neighborhood watch is exactly that, "watch" not "go out and get im' ". From what I have read they were both at fault, and unfortunately the situation escalated out of control.

All could have been avoided if the the watchmen had done what he was supposed to do.

GG

**Manchu**

@Ahtman: It is possible that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight with Martin. What's the implication?

**Frazzled**

Ok this is just weird. I could see doing that to stop others from making money off your kid or, inversely, using any proceeds for charity or a good cause, but its just, weird.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-family-looks-trademark-am-trayvon-justice-142131528.html

**Ahtman**

I don't think you read what I wrote. Let me do it again in your format.

It is possible that Zimmerman initiated a physical fight with Martin. What's the implication?

Is it possible that Zimmerman did not initiate a physical fight with Martin? Whats the implication?

It is possible that Martin initiated a physical fight with Zimmerman. What's the implication?

It is possible that Martin did not initiate a physical fight with Zimmerman. What's the implication?

My question is, why is your version any more absolute then the others? Where are you getting that Z only insulted M and that M then assaulted him?

**Manchu**

Well, my response to your post concedes my assumption. The next step in what is already proving to be another fruitful exchange is to ask what the removal of that assumption implies.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:Well, my response to your post concedes my assumption. The next step in what is already proving to be another fruitful exchange is to ask what the removal of that assumption implies.

I can't tell if you're being facetious, which isn't very useful at this juncture, or purposely being obtuse. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask how you came to the conclusion that there was just an verbal component only on the part of Z. You presented the argument more than once and I am curious as to why you came to that conclusion.

If you were just trying to point out that there are multiple possibilities of what could have happened in that moment I would think there were better ways of going about it than just picking one of the alternate possibilities and harping on it. You could have just said that we don't know what the inciting incident was that began the physical altercation.

To try and be more succinct*, I can't tell if that is what you believe happened or if you are trying to point out alternate theories of what began the physical altercation.

Some more questions:

It wasn’t until Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, called to file a missing-persons report on Feb. 27 that police went to his fiancee’s house with pictures of his son’s dead body. News reports have said that Trayvon’s body was tagged as a John Doe. But the “Partial Report Only” that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number. How did police get that information? Was Trayvon carrying identification? Did police try to contact that home number?

Trayvon’s father called his cell phone several times. Why didn’t police answer Trayvon’s cell phone?

Zimmerman reportedly had a bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his head and was given first aid by a Sanford Fire Department rescue unit. Where is their report of his injuries? Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s injuries?

Did the officer who arrived on the scene and placed Zimmerman in handcuffs read him his Miranda rights?

That same officer who put Zimmerman in handcuffs reported, “While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard him state ‘I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.’ At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place.” Why not?

Zimmerman was then taken to the Sanford Police Department and interviewed by an investigator. Was that interview recorded?

Was there blood splatter from Trayvon on Zimmerman’s clothing? Were any tests done on Zimmerman’s clothing? DNA? Gunpowder?

Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s clothing? Was the clothing taken into evidence.

Were there any signs of a struggle on Trayvon? Scratches, bruises? Were there any traces of Zimmerman’s hair or skin on Trayvon’s clothing or under his fingernails?

A drug and alcohol test was performed on Trayvon’s body. Were drugs and/or alcohol found in his system? There are reports that a similar test wasn’t done on Zimmerman? If not, why not?

You don’t have to be a devotee of “Law and Order” or “CSI” to come up with these questions. They’re pretty basic and common-sense. That they have to be asked one month and one day after the killing of Trayvon Martin is alarming.

*It is to late for that really I imagine.

**Manchu**

The idea that Zimmerman only verbally confronted Martin is not an argument that I was "harping" on. It's an assumption that I unthinkingly made more than once. You pointed out that it was an assumption and I acknowledged that. And then I asked what the opposite possibility would imply.

**fire4effekt**

Look at the size of that graphic. How is no one talking about Laundry care. That pic will crack and then you have a cracked Cracker. An no one wants to put cheese on those.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neighborhood Watch
Me shoot this kid and get away with it.

**LunaHound**

This all happened because Zim wanted a piece of Tray before the police arrive.

I wouldn't be surprised if his life changing movie was Mall Cop.

And no, im quite serious, the mentality of cop wannabes are so similar.

**Monster Rain**

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the wild speculation and barely coherent teenage angst portion of the thread.

**Manchu**

LunaHound wrote:This all happened because Zim wanted a piece of Tray before the police arrive.

That seems true to me. I mean, they told him to stand down.

**LunaHound**

Manchu wrote:
LunaHound wrote:This all happened because Zim wanted a piece of Tray before the police arrive.
That seems true to me. I mean, they told him to stand down.

If Zim wants to follow Tray to make sure he doesn't escape, that is fine but he could have done it from a distance, especially with police arriving VERY SHORTLY.

The time when on the phone the police told him to stand down, you can tell the elevated excitement in zim's voice.

the point is, Tray could be a drug dealer, or he could be an innocent victim,
either way doesn't change the fact that his death was a murder.

(edit), the death was avoidable, how about that?

**CptJake**

Fact: No one knows if the death was murder. Calling it murder and stating it as a fact is asinine at this point.

**Manchu**

@Luna: Even so, Zimmerman seems to have an absolute defense thanks to Martin.

**LunaHound**

CptJake wrote:Fact: No one knows if the death was murder. Calling it murder and stating it as a fact is asinine at this point.

Fair enough, will we be in agreement if we call zim an over zealous fool instead?

and the death is avoidable

Monster Rain wrote:And now, ladies and gentlemen, the wild speculation and barely coherent teenage angst portion of the thread.

Nice of you to join this thread and start off posting that /wink

**Ahtman**

Apparently the original officer on the scene recommended charging him with manslaughter but the DA chose not to.

It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.

**LunaHound**

Ahtman wrote:To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.

"Buddies that got each other's back" perhaps?

**Manchu**

What?

It looks to me that the the detective thought he had enough evidence but the lawyers thought otherwise. I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.

**Monster Rain**

Manchu wrote: I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.

Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.

This sums up my feelings on the case nicely.

**Manchu**

Monster Rain wrote:Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?

Or even police officers, for that matter. (!)

**Frazzled**

Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu wrote: I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.

Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?

Blasphemy!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.

This sums up my feelings on the case nicely.

**Lord Solar Awesome**

This may be a bit OT but what do you think the media and the people in this discussion would make of the situation if this were reversed? Would we even be talking about it right now? Sometimes you have to wonder...

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:So now you're arguing you can't in fact call 911? Seriously?

Of course someone can call 911. And they will, when they see an unfamiliar face in a gated community. And they are much, much more likely to do that when the unfamiliar face is black.

Maybe that's reasonable, because black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than other ethnicities.

But the net effect of this is that black people are more likely to be looked at suspciously wherever they go. So that even when you're doing nothing but going down the road to get some skittles, there's a far greater chance of having the cops called on you.

And I cannot believe that people are trying so hard to ignore how fethed up that is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alraz_ka wrote:Then why do African immigrants earn more than any other ethnic group other than Asians?

So by this post, you mean 'more than hispanics, but less than asians and for some reason probably relating to magic we're ignoring white people altogether'.

Here are the numbers for people in full time work, between the ages of 25 and 64.
Asian 42,109
White 40,422
African American 32,021
Hispanic 27,266

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The kid was a punk, it sucks when people get killed but sometimes you put yourself in situations that do get you killed. The kid was suspended from school and was not the 11 year old that most of the media show him as. He was 17 and over six feet tall.

So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.

I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:And now, ladies and gentlemen, the wild speculation and barely coherent teenage angst portion of the thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:Fact: No one knows if the death was murder. Calling it murder and stating it as a fact is asinine at this point.

Fact - We know very little about the case. But that hasn't stopped people speculating about all kinds of stuff.

The only three things we really do know is that a kid drew suspicion upon himself for being black, that suspicion led to a chain of events that got him killed, and that this reflects on a really fethed up situation for kids everywhere who will continue to be suspected of being up to no good simply because they are black.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Solar Awesome wrote:This may be a bit OT but what do you think the media and the people in this discussion would make of the situation if this were reversed? Would we even be talking about it right now? Sometimes you have to wonder...

Do you think there are gated communities filled almost entirely with black people in which a white kid walking along with a packet of skittles would be suspected of being a likely suspect for home burglaries.

I mean seriously dude, this isn't a thought exercise. It happened as it happened because it reflects how things work in the real world.

**Johnny-Crass**

I like how the Panthers are handling this, honest I do. Treat a wanna be vigilantly to a taste of his own medicine.

**CptJake**

Congresswoman Frederica Wilson wrote:Mr Zimmerman should be arrested immediately for his own safety

What a wonderful understanding of what arrest and detention are supposed to be for, and what the constitution (including the amendments) she is sworn to uphold actually mean.

**Frazzled**

Johnny-Crass wrote:I like how the Panthers are handling this, honest I do. Treat a wanna be vigilantly to a taste of his own medicine.

I like how the Panthers were arrested on weapons charges.

**sourclams**

sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.

I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?

If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.

**Ahtman**

sourclams wrote:
sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.

I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?

If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.

Maybe we should state mandate clothes so that some people won't have to worry about some other people thinking they are suspicious becuase they don't dress like Jehovah's Witnesses. Not that this would stop con men or white collar criminals who already tend to dress in such a way as to play into peoples bias as to go unseen.