The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-18-2013 03:33 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:12 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  There are several details of Zimmerman's route and actions that can only come from him because Martin is dead and there were no other witnesses. They could not even be sure by actual presence who was screaming for "HELP!!" "He was headed back to his car when he was attacked" came from GZ as the only living source. He had many days to refine his story (perhaps in consultation with a lawyer) before he had to tell it for the record. Was he telling the truth - the whole truth? We have his word on it, and the jury accepted it. That's the way the jury system works and we have no other alternative system that we know to be better.

GZ, Casey Anthony and O.J. had one advantage in common - the other parties to their story were dead - there being no other living witnesses and the juries accepted their story as the "truth". All 3 are technically and legally free today.

Except you are missing a minute difference. OJ and Casey Anthony committed cold blooded murder. Zimmerman at least appears to be a little different if you look at this rationally.

Also, I don't remember a whole lot of white folks getting pissed off and threatening to kill OJ after what he did. The legal system is what it is, I just hate seeing this blown up into a giant war on race.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE that matters is that the juries in all 3 cases ruled them ALL "Not Guilty" regardless of public opinion that may be to the contrary. There are many "outsiders" who think GZ was also guilty of murder, but they don't really matter any more than you or me on any of those cases. It could well be that your "verdict" is correct, but perhaps not.

"White" reaction to a verdict may be explained by them never having been deprived of the protection of the law for over a century and never being convicted in a southern courtroom solely because of their race ("To Kill a Mockingbird" was a tale not woven entirely out of fiction).

(07-18-2013 04:21 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:33 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:12 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  There are several details of Zimmerman's route and actions that can only come from him because Martin is dead and there were no other witnesses. They could not even be sure by actual presence who was screaming for "HELP!!" "He was headed back to his car when he was attacked" came from GZ as the only living source. He had many days to refine his story (perhaps in consultation with a lawyer) before he had to tell it for the record. Was he telling the truth - the whole truth? We have his word on it, and the jury accepted it. That's the way the jury system works and we have no other alternative system that we know to be better.

GZ, Casey Anthony and O.J. had one advantage in common - the other parties to their story were dead - there being no other living witnesses and the juries accepted their story as the "truth". All 3 are technically and legally free today.

Except you are missing a minute difference. OJ and Casey Anthony committed cold blooded murder. Zimmerman at least appears to be a little different if you look at this rationally.

Also, I don't remember a whole lot of white folks getting pissed off and threatening to kill OJ after what he did. The legal system is what it is, I just hate seeing this blown up into a giant war on race.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE that matters is that the juries in all 3 cases ruled them ALL "Not Guilty" regardless of public opinion that may be to the contrary. There are many "outsiders" who think GZ was also guilty of murder, but they don't really matter any more than you or me on any of those cases. It could well be that your "verdict" is correct, but perhaps not.

"White" reaction to a verdict may be explained by them never having been deprived of the protection of the law for over a century and never being convicted in a southern courtroom solely because of their race ("To Kill a Mockingbird" was a tale not woven entirely out of fiction).

13 years old, falsely accused and killed thanks to video killer convicted

This is why the precedent that was set in this case is dangerous

I don't like your music, 17 killed

I can pull up a bunch of stories about white folks getting attacked for being white too, what's your point?

(07-18-2013 04:21 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:33 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:12 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  There are several details of Zimmerman's route and actions that can only come from him because Martin is dead and there were no other witnesses. They could not even be sure by actual presence who was screaming for "HELP!!" "He was headed back to his car when he was attacked" came from GZ as the only living source. He had many days to refine his story (perhaps in consultation with a lawyer) before he had to tell it for the record. Was he telling the truth - the whole truth? We have his word on it, and the jury accepted it. That's the way the jury system works and we have no other alternative system that we know to be better.

GZ, Casey Anthony and O.J. had one advantage in common - the other parties to their story were dead - there being no other living witnesses and the juries accepted their story as the "truth". All 3 are technically and legally free today.

Except you are missing a minute difference. OJ and Casey Anthony committed cold blooded murder. Zimmerman at least appears to be a little different if you look at this rationally.

Also, I don't remember a whole lot of white folks getting pissed off and threatening to kill OJ after what he did. The legal system is what it is, I just hate seeing this blown up into a giant war on race.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE that matters is that the juries in all 3 cases ruled them ALL "Not Guilty" regardless of public opinion that may be to the contrary. There are many "outsiders" who think GZ was also guilty of murder, but they don't really matter any more than you or me on any of those cases. It could well be that your "verdict" is correct, but perhaps not.

"White" reaction to a verdict may be explained by them never having been deprived of the protection of the law for over a century and never being convicted in a southern courtroom solely because of their race ("To Kill a Mockingbird" was a tale not woven entirely out of fiction).

If we aren't ever going to let the past go, we are never going to move forward as a country. I don't agree with, condone, like, [insert whatever other phrase you'd like here], the way that people were treated years ago based on skin color. I also don't believe that is rampant in today's society.(yes, it's still present to an extent, but it also goes both ways, let's not forget that) Nobody can undo the wrongs that were done, but we as a society can move forward, TOGETHER.

As far as the cases go, they were very different. At least one juror in the OJ case said if all the facts were presented in court that their vote would have been different. OJ got away with it because he hired the best legal team money could buy, and they withheld a ton of damning evidence from ever entering the court room.

The Anthony and Zimmerman trials were based more off of circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

Yes, it is better to "let the past go", but that is easier when it's not YOUR PAST that is being "let go". YOU, personally, are individually very much "over the 'other guy's' past", but those whose past is being dismissed are also very wary that the promise of the future being different from that past might be more an illusion than a fact. In cases like this Martin case, they see reason to doubt the great changes in attitude that are being "sold as fact" by the majority people.

As long as there are persons who can roll up their sleeves to show their numbered tattoos, "getting over" the Holocaust is a challenge. As long as the USS Arizona Monument is a "must see" visit in Hawai'i, the Alamo for Texans, Gettysburg for the Civil War students, Shanksville, PA, the Pentagon and Ground Zero from 9/11 and other such landmarks of important events of our past are hallowed, we are being very selective in what we want OTHER persons "to get over".

If you have formulated a strong opinion and openly debated any of the TV news murder cases, then you have fallen victim to exactly what the media wanted. They have made you a dedicated, invested and involved viewer that needs to watch the updates on the case, and subsquently buy the products that are advertised.

There were over 2000 murders in Florida in the past 2 years. Two have made the news. Why? Because they were potentially polarizing events, so they were picked so that they can sensationalize and hype the precedings and lure you into watching.

(07-19-2013 04:35 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  If you have formulated a strong opinion and openly debated any of the TV news murder cases, then you have fallen victim to exactly what the media wanted. They have made you a dedicated, invested and involved viewer that needs to watch the updates on the case, and subsquently buy the products that are advertised.

There were over 2000 murders in Florida in the past 2 years. Two have made the news. Why? Because they were potentially polarizing events, so they were picked so that they can sensationalize and hype the precedings and lure you into watching.

Bingo.

I liked Charles Barkley's quote on the matter.

"He added that he “feels bad” that the trial gave “every white person and black person who is racist the platform to vent their ignorance. That’s the thing that bothered me the most. I watched this trial closely. I watched these people on television talking about it. A lot of these people have a hidden agenda. They want to have their racist views, whether they are white or black… They’re biases come out.”

I can see that it would be comforting to be able to take the Potius Pilate approach and "wash your hands of the matter" and dismiss all questions of the matter as racist inspired. I don't think it will be (or should be) so simply dismissed.

(07-20-2013 12:03 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  I can see that it would be comforting to be able to take the Potius Pilate approach and "wash your hands of the matter" and dismiss all questions of the matter as racist inspired. I don't think it will be (or should be) so simply dismissed.

Then why don't we as a society look into every single murder of a black person by a white person, and a white person by a black person?

And for the last damn time, Zimmerman is not even white. I know everything the media tells us is true, but a quick search tells you he is Hispanic.

"Hispanic" is not a specific race, but a national / regional origin. You can be Hispanic and be from any racially ethnic group. The hero of Chilean independence was Bernardo O'Higgins, not a common Latino name. One of the recent presidential candidates in one of the Andean nations has a Japanese name. If Zimmerman is sensitive about his mixed ancestry, that could have partly, at least, explained why he felt so "pushed' to go after Martin that fateful night.

The Andean nation you are talking about is Peru. It is Alberto Fujimori's daughter Keiko Fujimori - in Peru known mostly as just Keiko (or Fujimori's daughter). Alberto was president from 1990 until 2000 and Keiko unsuccessfully ran for president.

I haven't seen anything saying Zimmerman is sensitive about his background. I mean his great grandfather is of African descent and his mom is from Peru. His dad is from the US. He seems to be have a mixed background which is what MOST Latinos have. Most are either mesitzo or mulatto. Considering his high school girlfriend was African American, I don't think he had a problem with mixed backgrounds, african americans, mestizos, or mulattos.

(07-21-2013 01:23 AM)BTR Wrote:  The Andean nation you are talking about is Peru. It is Alberto Fujimori's daughter Keiko Fujimori - in Peru known mostly as just Keiko (or Fujimori's daughter). Alberto was president from 1990 until 2000 and Keiko unsuccessfully ran for president.

I haven't seen anything saying Zimmerman is sensitive about his background. I mean his great grandfather is of African descent and his mom is from Peru. His dad is from the US. He seems to be have a mixed background which is what MOST Latinos have. Most are either mesitzo or mulatto. Considering his high school girlfriend was African American, I don't think he had a problem with mixed backgrounds, african americans, mestizos, or mulattos.

This is my point. Everybody wants to act like Zimmerman is white and feels like he is the supreme race, but that simply isn't the case.

(07-21-2013 09:55 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 01:23 AM)BTR Wrote:  The Andean nation you are talking about is Peru. It is Alberto Fujimori's daughter Keiko Fujimori - in Peru known mostly as just Keiko (or Fujimori's daughter). Alberto was president from 1990 until 2000 and Keiko unsuccessfully ran for president.

I haven't seen anything saying Zimmerman is sensitive about his background. I mean his great grandfather is of African descent and his mom is from Peru. His dad is from the US. He seems to be have a mixed background which is what MOST Latinos have. Most are either mesitzo or mulatto. Considering his high school girlfriend was African American, I don't think he had a problem with mixed backgrounds, african americans, mestizos, or mulattos.

This is my point. Everybody wants to act like Zimmerman is white and feels like he is the supreme race, but that simply isn't the case.

ALL on both "sides" of this trial result are projecting into Zimmerman's mindset what we presume he was thinking. Maybe he will write a book and let us all in on his true feelings but until then, we are all just guessing. His legal team kept him quiet - rightfully so - on all these issues to avoid any chance of an ill considered spontaneous remark adding to their problems.

There is also the proposition that the two men in this case are not the main issue, but just illustrations of larger societal problems that they acted out. "Bit players" as it were, on a much larger - national - stage. As with others in the past, we may not now fully realize just how significant they are until years down the road. The impact of Rosa Parks grew over time and she is today labeled the "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement" while the "New Town, CT 20" are more and more dismissed as horrific "collateral damage", a bump on the road to protecting greater gun rights.

(07-21-2013 11:28 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  There is also the proposition that the two men in this case are not the main issue, but just illustrations of larger societal problems that they acted out. "Bit players" as it were, on a much larger - national - stage.

BANGO!!!

Add to this the millions and millions of dollars to be made by people who have found themselves no longer relevant to the national discussion. All of a sudden these people have something to talk about and a huge microphone to say it in. Lawyers will make millions. The hate mongers on BOTH sides will make millions. Politicians will use this to further their power grab.

I read Zimmerman's father's book on the flight this weekend. It was an interesting (and quick) read. Is it one sided? Yes, but it does provide a perspective that hasn't really been seen on the national news media. I recommend the book no matter what you believe about the trial.