Thursday, April 26, 2012

George Zimmerman: Right-Wing American Jesus, Martyr, and Mascot for Post-Racial America


We are running out of metaphors with which to describe the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Is this saga a Rorschach test, one where the polarizations of race, class, and political orientation (quite literally) color how we interpret the events of that tragic evening? Or is the killing of Trayvon Martin better described as a projection of sorts—where the realities of the color line and a society that systematically devalues the lives of black and brown people are amplified on a national stage?

At this point in our national ordeal, tragedy has succumbed to absurdity. In all, these matters have devolved into a three ring traveling circus worthy of PT Barnum and the flim flam artists of the early 20th century.

Zimmerman has offered a bizarre “apology” for killing an unarmed teenager that makes his death sound more like an act of God and random accident, than the result of one person’s desire to irresponsibly play vigilante toy cop. Thugs have assaulted innocent people as “retribution” and “revenge” for Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman’s defenders on the Right have magically discovered a deep love for the health and safety of black folks, as well as a profound concern about “black on black” crime. The reverse racists, racism deniers, and conservative adherents to the trinity cult of “gun rights,” white racial resentment, and black criminality have reimagined Zimmerman as a martyr, victim, and mascot.

This week, Reuters news service opened a new exhibit in this perverse roadshow. Chris Francescani’s profile of Zimmerman has all of the elements of a great spectacle, one that draws upon old anxieties and tropes about race in American life, while also adding some new twists. According to Reuters, George Zimmerman is apparently “part-black” through his great grandfather from Peru. Moreover, Francescani has innovated upon the classic “best black friend defense” for those who are accused of acting with racial animus, by profiling how Zimmerman’s grandmother was a babysitter for two African-American children.

In this tale, there is also an unnamed black informant who legitimates Zimmerman’s racial profiling of Trayvon Martin. She paints a portrait of a neighborhood under siege by black hooligans and thieves. Thus, in this narrative, George Zimmerman was a “reasonable” person who acted in good faith, as he meted out his version of justice on a person he decided was “suspicious” by virtue of his identity as a teenager who happened to be black, male, and walking down the street.

Apparently, in “post-racial” America, blood quantum, melanin, DNA, and familial associations are now immunizers for any charge or assertion that racism could have played a role in George Zimmerman’s decision to hunt down and kill Trayvon Martin.

Historically, race has been made, reproduced, and created in bizarre and absurd episodes such as the above. In the landmark Thind and Ozawa cases during the first decades of the twentieth century, Asian and Sikh Americans were denied citizenship in the United States by an arbitrary standard in which the Supreme Court famously decided that being “white” was determined by the common sense norms held by the average white man. Scientists studied skulls, bones, brain size, and posture in order to rank racial and ethnic groups in a hierarchy where “whites” were naturally and always on top. In the year 1915, during the height of Jim and Jane Crow and the KKK’s reign of terror, Leo Frank, a Jew, was convicted of murder and subsequently lynched for killing a white girl (an accusation he denied) in a show trial that hinged on the testimony of Jim Conley, a black man.

At present, America is at a demographic crossroad. With the “browning” of America and the growth of Latinos and Hispanics as America’s largest “minority” group, popular assumptions about identity and race are being challenged and renegotiated. For example, Latinos and Hispanics are an ethnic and cultural group; but they can be of any race. Many in the public are apparently unable to comprehend this fact.

George Zimmerman is an object lesson in these dynamics. The efforts to defend Zimmerman through appeals to his “racial identity” are one more part of a long and bizarre national play. In some contexts he is a Hispanic and honorary white person, who, like white conservatives, is a “victim” of black people in mass, and bogeyman activists and “race hustlers” such as Al Sharpton. Here, Zimmerman is framed as some type of model minority and “good” Hispanic who, like white people in the Age of Obama, is oppressed, a victim of reverse racism and racial hysteria.

Ironically, the very same conservatives who embrace and amplify Zimmerman’s Hispanic identity for the purposes of smearing Trayvon Martin, share a political worldview that is explicitly xenophobic and hostile to non-whites. This reality has been repeatedly demonstrated by Right-wing populist rhetoric such as “real America,” and “take our country back,” its adherents’ support of such conspiratorial fictions as birtherism, and their embrace of racial profiling, deportation of “illegal” aliens, as well as the elimination of Ethnic and Chicano studies programs in Texas and Arizona.

For the conservatives who have embraced George Zimmerman as a martyr and victim, his racial status is circumstantial, contingent, and wholly dependent on the political whims and needs of a given moment. Ultimately, if George Zimmerman was accused of hunting down and killing either a white teenage boy (or God forbid, a young white woman!) in exactly the same circumstances, his “Hispanic” identity would be turned into a liability and a sin, his honorary whiteness quickly and inexorably revoked.

As the public discourse surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin has revealed, many Americans still have a facile, flat, and thin understanding of how racism is more than mean words and deeds. It is complex, structural, and operative in many, if not most, areas of American life and culture.

However we choose to navigate the circus and spectacle that the Trayvon Martin saga has become, several facts remain true. By carrying a gun, George Zimmerman, self-styled vigilante and pretend cop, violated the rules of the block watch group he so obsessively fawned over, and in which he apparently had a near pathological investment in. George Zimmerman ignored police directives as he stalked and harassed an innocent person. George Zimmerman decided that Trayvon Martin was “suspicious” and guilty by association because he committed the “crime” of being black, male, and wearing a hooded sweatshirt on a rainy evening. And George Zimmerman made a series of choices that resulted in the unnecessary killing of a seventeen year old boy.

Unlike George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin will never be afforded a detailed accounting of his life such as the one offered by Reuters. He is dead, killed in the street by George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin’s life was stolen, not free to have the ups and downs, successes and failures that Zimmerman experienced in his 28 years (and in the decades likely to come). Trayvon Martin’s family is left asking what could have been. The answer was denied them by one man’s series of poor choices, and his obsession with “these assholes” that “always get away.”

Regardless of the color or race which George Zimmerman may identify with, one thing remains certain: he is a vigilante killer.

128 comments:

Anonymous said...

Asking that Zimmerman not be tried and lynched in the media makes Zimmerman our rightwing jesus and martyr?


What ever happen to "lets not rush to judgement"?

Anonymous said...

CD,

You neglected(why?)to mention the rest of Zimmerman's dossier he is yet another jewish vigilante in the long infamous line of these cowards from Goetz to the jewish vigilante's on trial in Baltimore for beeating into submission a Black kid for daring to go into a jewish neighborhood.

Into this era of Negrophobia our society has matured a narrative which allows for the execution of Black males with immunity unlike the 'color of law' death squads dressed in police uniforms license has now be extended to sanctioned community watch programs

Former allies of the Black community now seek admission into whiteness by perfecting Negrophobia..

Like white jewish professors in the 50's who founded Black study programs and became experts on negroes in exchange for whiteness ...Hispanics and soon to be followed by the model Asians will follow the script created by Jewish vigilantes like Goetz and Zimmerman..

The Zimmerman dossier is full of intel for some it is a instructional manuel on the art of killing a negro..Just Sayin

sledge said...

The U.N is getting involved now. Not sure why. Wonder if they can get the light fixed at the end of the street. Think I'll call them.

Fla. Civil Rights Group Welcomes U.N. Official’s Call for Reparations in Trayvon Martin Case

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla-civil-rights-group-welcomes-un-official-s-call-reparations-trayvon-martin-case

Anonymous said...

all I needed was to see the "hunted down" (far from being proven at this point)part to know there was bias on the part of the writer.

sledge said...

When I read the slanted views of the defenders of Trayvon. I pound my head against the wall.

When I read the slanted views of the defenders of Zimmerman. I pound my head against the wall.

I wish they would hurry up and seat a jury.

Listening to all of these self appointed prosecutors and defense attorneys are making my head hurt.

sabrinabee said...

Zimmerman is going to get off. The dossier is proof of the very thing that his defenders accused those that were asking for justice of, trying the case in the media. Those that are trying to push the hispanic angle conveiently gloss over that the most ardent supporter, the most vocal, the man who is guiding him and testifying fornhim in court is his father, a white man. His African side two continets removed has had no direct bearing on his upbringing. But, they know this. This is not simply those that have access to smearing, it is the prosecutors too. The arrest affidavit's evidence did not include a key piece of evidence. Declared it indeterminate even though "we" know what was said. Without that, the jury is going to be unable to prove that this was racial and he will walk.

Improbable Joe said...

Part of our current "post-racial" society is a desperation among many people to make disappear any situation that might have a racial subtext.(see multiple anonymous comments above)

The point isn't even about the situation itself, as much as it is that the person reacting to it doesn't want to have to think about it at all. The folks defending Zimmerman don't actually care if Zimmerman is racist or not. All they really care about is that they don't want to believe that THEY are racist. That's also why they've worked so hard to minimize and marginalize claims of racism to the point that they might actually believe that racism is only attached to people in white hoods burning crosses and screaming racial slurs at the tops of their lungs. That way, their own more subtle and banal discriminatory attitudes don't count against them.

mkheru bradley said...

The UN has no credibility. As the assault on Libya proves the UN is nothing more than a tool of the Western imperial powers. NATO authorized by the UN facilitated war crimes against Black people in Libya, particularly the Tawerghans, by a Libyan version of the KKK.

http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/ethnic-cleansing-genocide-and-the-tawergha/

“The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”-- Navi Pillay

Why hasn’t Pillay called for “an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims” of crimes against humanity in Libya?

There is too much focus on the individual Zimmerman, and not enough focus on the institutions which encourage a Zimmerman-type of mindset.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: First of all, part of this article is correct: This has gone from tragedy to absurdity. And, sadly, so has your supposed power of reasoning. Why can't someone state the rights of Zimmerman without smearing Martin? You claim Zimmerman's "decision to hunt down and kill Trayvon Martin" with NO evidence to support it.

Trayvon Martin now has a PR firm (Ryan Julison) marketing his case. Zimmerman has no such effort, and you attack those who try and stand up for what may be his absolutely legitimate legal rights.

Then you make stuff up. Kindly give EVIDENCE to back your claims that 1) he decided to hunt down and kill Trayvon; 2) He stalked and harassed Trayvon; 3) He went after Trayvon for the crime of being black; 4) Zimmerman was a vigilante killer.

You have stated all of these as FACTS. Fine. Show EVIDENCE, other than racial stereotyping which appears (based on EVIDENCE) to have no basis.

And while we're at it, your charge of "right wing" "Take back our country" calls. Kindly check your history. Many LIBERALS used those words long BEFORE the Tea Party ever got together. Here's a partial list (there are more): Saul Alinsky, The UAW, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama, who was twice Keynote Speaker at the annual "Take Back America" conference, dedicated to bashing President George W. Bush.

I don't mind you making charges, Chauncey. But at least try and back them with some facts.

Thank you.

chaunceydevega said...

@Color. I keep saying I will leave you to others to deal with. I have to ask: what of the rights of Trayvon Martin, killed by George Zimmerman? For someone who claims to believe in fairness and fair play, funny you are mute on such an obvious matter given your desperate need to defend a reckless killer. Very telling.

Anonymous said...

@ Sabrinabee

Zimmerman will get off only if the prosecutor has uncovered no new evidence.

ColorBind said...

@Cha: No. You are again wrong. I have repeatedly stated that Martin should be and should have been accorded the same rights and treatment of Zimmerman. I have written that if what you charge were correct, that Zimmerman should hang.

The race of the parties to me doesn't matter. And (at least in my world) it shouldn't to you. Somebody is dead. That's a tragedy. The question is why is he dead. If he was "murdered" in cold blood because of race as you suggest (with absolutely no evidence, on which, despite my repeated requests, you are remarkably mute) then I would be on the other side.

Unlike you, to me, race does not matter. And unlike you (who claim as fact that a bus driver was beaten by "White children" when the police report says they were black), I look for evidence.

Again, I will ask YOU. What EVIDENCE do you have to back your assertions against the shooter in this case? Surely a man of your lofty intellect should be able to provide substance to back your charges, right?

Or is there something "racist" about asking for facts? You like to talk about priors and first principles. The Reuters article on Zimmerman gives some background on him. That doesn't detract from Martin or "smear" him as you charge. It gives more perspective to the case.

More perspective is good, right?

Anon 1 said...

Unlike you, to me, race does not matter. And unlike you (who claim as fact that a bus driver was beaten by "White children" when the police report says they were black), I look for evidence.- Colorbind


How often does one need to repeat a lie for it to become the truth?

CNu said...

CB - your "priors" have been deemed insufficient to hold up your side of CDV's preferred philosophical and theological dispute

CDV - your command of the facts and the law have been proven insufficient to hold up a point-by-point assessment of culpability under the law

meanwhile, young no_limits-niggaz continue to get shot by the dozens daily, nationwide...,

{YAWN!!!}

ColorBind said...

@Chau: Since you asked, here is one of my comments from an earlier article:
-----------------------------------
If Zimmerman had been on top, with Martin on the bottom, and Martin was carrying a legally concealed weapon and had to shoot to save his own life, I would be backing him.

Is it unfair of me to give the same consideration to Zimmerman,if the evidence shows that's what happened?
-----------------------------------
Is that acceptable to you?

chaunceydevega said...

@Cnu. I would hope that someone as cynical as yourself would realize that Zimmerman has a vested interest in lying to keep himself from going to prison. Some other folks are too dim or invested in protecting whiteness and white authority via Zimmerman to see that plainly.

Or are you so jaded--and perhaps realistic--that this is all semi-important given the big Malthusian die off coming up?

I never claimed to be an attorney. But, you cannot initiate the encounter as Zimmerman did and then claim self-defense. He also carried a weapon for a "job" as toy cop blow and go town crier watch guy when said "rules" forbid such activity, he chases down a private citizen who was guilty of walking home, and ignores police directives.

You and I both know, and again I am surprised a bit Cnu that you are giving a pass to bs, that if his daddy wasn't a judge and if he were black, or the victim were white, how the story would turn out quite differently.

Ultimately, while I am sympathetic to your concerns about the system collapse, I am invested in making sure that the basic rights of private citizens are respected.

Zimmerman, a clown, who apparently is so off kilter his dad couldn't rig it to get him into cop school, played Charles Bronson. Now he has to deal with the consequences. Will he walk? I think so given the crappy and incompetent police work and that one of the witness was killed by him. Once more to the foolishness of these portable castle doctrine laws.

These laws, and to permit Zimmerman's behavior which is increasingly common, is to give license to the type of Mad Max barbarism that will be coming up as the State is destroyed and we are forced to prey on each other. That time ain't here yet; I will not succumb to it prematurely.

You know how I feel about ign'ts; Travyon could be Pol Pot or Manson for all I care, and Zimmerman would still need to go to prison.

ColorBind said...

@Chaun: Since you took a couple of not-so-subtle swipes at me in your response to CNU (and I note you still have no legitimate response to my questions), I will answer.

Yes. Zimmerman does have a reason to lie. And yes, in spite of that, the evidence supports what he says. If you have a rational explanation for that, please offer it.

I am neither dim nor invested in whiteness. But change the term to blackness and direct that charge to your words, then you've got a credible point.

Finally, You said:

"I am invested in making sure that the basic rights of private citizens are respected."

Zimmerman is a private citizen. Ergo he has basic rights that you claim to respect.

Hasn't that been my entire argument here, which you keep attacking in a "dim and black" manner?

I humbly await your reasoned response (and your likely claim that we are not in agreement here).

chaunceydevega said...

Colorblindarousedandscatologicallyminded.

I keep saying I won't look into the light. But just like in the Poltergeist movie I do. There is a problem here with selective processing of information on your part.

I think you are possessed of a deep type of cognitive dissonance where anything that supports your obsession with defending George Zimmerman, a person with a very questionable background and some issues with violent impulses, is elevated to the realm of fact.

There are witnesses who disagree with Zimmerman's "factual account," we have audio tapes and transcripts in which he disobeys the police, he chases down and follows an innocent citizen he has racially profiled, Martin's phone call to his girlfriend is a very different account than Zimmerman's multiple stories about what happened that night--the detectives even said he was lying, dude has a gun when on "black watch" and this is not permitted or advised, etc. etc.

You are so deep into this that you cannot imagine that Zimmerman is lying nor imagine that perhaps Martin has rights which are inaliable. Should he have surrendered to a stranger with a gun who was harassing and following him? Thrown up his hands and got on his knees and laid there for a wannabetoycop. Zimmerman has no authority what so ever. I would have told him to go to hell and sued his ass.

More obviously, listening to that tape Zimmerman sounds unbalanced and obsessed. Dude is off kilter. If you can't see that he had some basic mental health issues and his wannabe fan boy obsession with the men in blue was leading him somewhere bad I can't help you.

This case stinks to high heaven. The cops covered it up, didn't test him for drugs, and treated a murdered innocent person like human debris. If you can't see that, once more, there are some basic things going on with you ethically and morally.

This is my last response to you as I said before, it is like punching water. If you were at all fairminded and not invested in Zimmerman as good aggrieved honorary white man standing up to black "thugs" even you would say he should have been arrested a long time ago and this matter thoroughly investigated. Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say that.

Sad.

CNu said...

I would hope that someone as cynical as yourself would realize that Zimmerman has a vested interest in lying to keep himself from going to prison.

This is almost universally true of defendants. The burden of proof is on that legendary bulldogging state attorney prosecuting this case.

Some other folks are too dim or invested in protecting whiteness and white authority via Zimmerman to see that plainly. Or are you so jaded--and perhaps realistic--that this is all semi-important given the big Malthusian die off coming up?

lol,

1. Do you think that Zimmerman has pulled any wool over the prosecuting attorney's eyes, and do you trust her competence?

2. Nearly 15% of the able-bodied population of the developing world had to be murdered in WW-II to bring the Great Depression to a close.

I never claimed to be an attorney. But, you cannot initiate the encounter as Zimmerman did and then claim self-defense. He also carried a weapon for a "job" as toy cop blow and go town crier watch guy when said "rules" forbid such activity, he chases down a private citizen who was guilty of walking home, and ignores police directives.

Sure you can. You can't initiate the "violence" and then claim self-defense.

You and I both know, and again I am surprised a bit Cnu that you are giving a pass to bs, that if his daddy wasn't a judge and if he were black, or the victim were white, how the story would turn out quite differently.

You'll get no argument from me on that count. But the question of "burden of proof" and whether the uncompromised prosecutor can meet it will resolve that one way or another, right?

Ultimately, while I am sympathetic to your concerns about the system collapse, I am invested in making sure that the basic rights of private citizens are respected.

I'm not particularly concerned about system collapse, I merely view it as an inevitability that needs to be incorporated in what people are taught, what they think, and what they expect in the coming years. 1947 held a very different near future real economic prospectus than 2012 does.

Zimmerman, a clown, who apparently is so off kilter his dad couldn't rig it to get him into cop school, played Charles Bronson. Now he has to deal with the consequences. Will he walk? I think so given the crappy and incompetent police work and that one of the witness was killed by him. Once more to the foolishness of these portable castle doctrine laws.

Good luck with curbing the 2nd Amendment du jour..., as for me, I'ma keep right on gunning up - and would heartily encourage you to do likewise.

These laws, and to permit Zimmerman's behavior which is increasingly common, is to give license to the type of Mad Max barbarism that will be coming up as the State is destroyed and we are forced to prey on each other. That time ain't here yet; I will not succumb to it prematurely.

Your failure to prepare as Robert Williams would have had you to do is a significant hole in your bucket brah..., best patch that up quick, fast, and in a hurry.

You know how I feel about ign'ts; Travyon could be Pol Pot or Manson for all I care, and Zimmerman would still need to go to prison.

I'm glad you stated this as "how you feel". This way, when Zimmerman walks, though you'll be mad, ratiocinatively as a matter under the law, you'll know that fin d'siecle American "justice" was properly and consistently implemented and served.

chaunceydevega said...

@Cnu. You are spot on in regards to "American justice." But even Derkowitz, a critic of the prosecutor in this case, said you cannot use the castle defense if you initiate combat. For example, you can't go chase some body down, or start a fight with them, and try to find protection under stand your ground. The burden was 1) on you to not start the contact and 2) to escape.

Please correct me if I misunderstood. What this will also come down to is the idea of "threat." In our society, it is understood that black people-old, young, disabled, in wheel chairs, wearing suits, or yes, sagging like ign'ts are an existential threat. This is so primed into the collective subconscious that Zimmerman will walk.

On the point of brother Williams, I am finally going through the trouble and paperwork of getting a pistol here in Chicago. I thought it was near impossible, but a friend of mine who has a thing for long rifles cued me in on the details.

ColorBind said...

@ChaunceyWhoRunsFromAnHonestDebate:

The only "selective processing" here is by you. I ask for evidence, and state that I'm open to it NO MATTER WHICH SIDE IT SUPPORTS. You claim Zimmerman "disobeyed" police. The 9-11 tape shows he said "OK" and may have been returning to his car. How is that "disobeyed"? Martin was "racially profiled"? Not according to that 9-11 call that Zimmerman must have pre-recorded and given to the cops. BTW, what kind of person sets out to kill a black teen, and first calls the cops, gives his name, address, phone number and location, and waits for the cops?

Your fourth paragraph shows that you either cannot or will not read my words. Either way, your charges are dishonest. BTW, you would have sued Zimmerman -- for asking a stranger what he was doing? Are you sane? And you call Zimmerman a stupid clown?

I have also questioned why only Martin was drug tested, and why his body was held for three days. And I have repeatedly stated that I want ALL the evidence, no matter who it implicates. Sadly, the only evidence you've provided is that of your own racial tunnel vision. Sick and pathetic? Certainly.

This is a black and white issue. Either Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or he is not. Shades of race have nothing to do with it -- it's based on the law.

And if this post doesn't get deleted (like half a dozen others have been), then I will patiently await (again) any EVIDENCE you may offer to back your claims. I, too, believe that EVERY private citizen (and that includes Trayvon) is entitled to respect and equal justice under the law.

Or you can choose to once again avoid dealing with the fact that I am looking for facts, and you are lacking in this department. You will note that I do not run from your subjective charges. It's interesting that you would flee from my reasonable questions.

nomad said...

Damn, Chauncey. I don't envy you in having to deconstruct these disingenuous arguments. I haven't read all of this dribble but this in particular stands out:

"If Zimmerman had been on top, with Martin on the bottom, and Martin was carrying a legally concealed weapon and had to shoot to save his own life, I would be backing him."

No you wouldn't. You and the other racists would be howling for Trayvon's blood.

CNu said...

you cannot use the castle defense if you initiate combat. For example, you can't go chase some body down, or start a fight with them, and try to find protection under stand your ground. The burden was 1) on you to not start the contact and 2) to escape.

CDV - this whole matter pivots on the basic question of whether or not Zimmerman initiated contact or combat and whether there's sufficient evidence for the prosecutor to meet the applicable burden of proof.

Many times as I've been to court as an expert witness for plaintiffs or as a defendant challenging whether a plaintiff has met burden, ontological fact and truth is by no means equivalent with facts under law.

I expect that a great many folks with a significant emotional investment in the outcome of this case stand to be deeply disappointed with the application of available facts under law...,

I'm sorry that that's the way things are. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've taught my own son how to kill, quick, fast, and in a hurry. I've also taught him the absolute necessity of "yes sir", "no ma'am", please, thank you, and NEVER, EVER under any circumstances to start none.

Never ever start none, for any reason, and always keep your mind calm and frosty enough to end any encounter in your favor.

Today's world is not the world that you and I grew up in where things would most often be resolved via fisticuffs.

sledge said...

@ CB...
You won't get any answers to your questions of proof until the trial.
The prosecutors will have better proof than they've made public so far or I suspect Z will walk.

Either way, he may not live long if the tweets that went out after he made bail are any indication.


@CDV....
Glad to hear you're getting a weapon. Whether you've used weapons in your background or not I hope you'll spend a lot of time practicing with it. If you ever need it while under stress muscle memory is your best friend.

ColorBind said...

@Nomad: First of all, I believe the word you want is "drivel".
(see your posting at 2:06).

Secondly, who on earth are you to determine what I would or would not do? Try reading my words (since you clearly cannot read my mind) and point to ANYTHING that backs your absurd charge.

Why in the world would you brand me a racist when a) you don't even know my race, b) nothing I have said here can in any sane world be construed as racist? Are you now claiming that wanting equal treatment for both Zimmerman and Martin is racist? How does that work? Enlighten me, please.

As with Chauncey, I humbly await EVIDENCE to the contrary.

And as with Chauncey, I won't hold my breath.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: I assume the prosecutors do have evidence, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I just get tired of quoting the existing evidence and having Chauncey call me out for not imagining the same things he believes, which are not backed by evidence. Just trying to be fair.

And, sadly, you could be right about the tweets. And, tragically, it may end up being proven that Zimmerman was well within his legal rights, and that Chauncey, for all of his lofty rhetoric, will be dead wrong. Sadly, for Zimmerman, the word "wrong" wouldn't matter.

sledge said...

@ CB....

Honestly, I don't understand why you and CDV go back and forth on this. Neither will change the other person's mind about what matters in the case. Not to mention that it really doesn't matter what you, he or any of us think.

I do think Trayvon's supporters won a major victory when Z was arrested. If not for all of the commotion and attention Z probably wouldn't have been arrested. I'm sure the evidence has been looked at a lot harder than it would have been otherwise. I think that's a good thing.

Although, I doubt that will be enough to console anyone who will be unhappy if Z does walk.

CNu said...

No matter what, Zimmerman was wrong and had no business trying to pursue or confront anyone - even in the wild west there was a concept of a fair fight.

Tracy Martin did not adequately prepare his son for the reality of cowards swollen up with false gun courage.

No matter what, people are going to be intensely unhappy with the outcome....,

chaunceydevega said...

@God. I keep saying I will not look into the light. It compels me. Coloredmad, you have zero credibility at this point. Fictions about fights you didn't witness between Zimmerman now a contortionist, and the plain fact that Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher telling him to leave Martin alone.

I have read and reread that transcript. Zimmerman racially profiled a stranger, followed them, causing them to run for safety. He gave chase and then killed him.

Martin did nothing wrong or criminal save for walking while black. You would have a ton more evidence if you at least agreed on that basic prior, and admitted that Zimmerman instigated this matter. We can disagree on what happened next, i.e. did Trayvon stand his ground as he was legally protected in doing, or did he defend himself against an armed stranger with a gun who was stalking him.

That is where the nitty gritty of this case is going to lie.

And yes, great defender of Zimmerman, a toy cop Taxi Driver wannabe, if a play cop was following me and dared to ask me what I was doing on a public street I would tell him to go to hell...however politely. If he tried to subdue or "arrest me" then it would be on like donkey kong as the saying goes.

And I would be fully within my rights as a citizen to do so.

Ultimately, I think Zimmerman stalked and harassed Martin, causing him to flee, the former played toy cop and tried to arrest Martin like his heroes in blue, there was an altercation and Zimmerman either willfully shot and killed Martin in cold blood on purpose, or he lost control of the weapon and it discharged.

We shall see. But again, Martin did nothing wrong in either defending himself and his person against a criminal threat with a gun who was acting outside of the realm of the law.

I call you dishonest because you are unwilling to concede those basic facts.

nomad said...

Sorry CBind. I made a mistake. Because in the reverse scenario, you wouldn't even have to holler. Not for blood. Not for justice. Trayvon would be in jail. From the night of the incident to this present moment. If, indeed, he survived the police "interrogation". It's called institutional racism. So forget what I said about anyone having to shout. My point is moot. And thank you for the acknowledgement of drivel.

nomad said...

@ CB
"Why in the world would you brand me a racist when a) you don't even know my race"

I'm an equal opportunity anti-racist. The color of your skin doesn't matter. It's the color of your mind.

ColorBind said...

@Nomad: You have no idea the color of my mind. And if you actually read what I have written, you would see how absurd your charge is. I do not deny that there is racism. You deny my right not to practice it. Fair?

@ChaunceyOnHigh:

Show me where in any transcript it shows that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin chased and then killed him. I AM OPEN TO EVIDENCE, if you have it. (In several weeks, despite being on this story every day, I have yet to see what you claim as fact. Kindly present it).

If Zimmerman had attacked Martin, then Trayvon would have the right to defend himself. Again, where is the evidence to this? I have yet to see it. (And I have repeatedly asked you for it).

I'm asking again. My mind is open if you are willing to share. Yours, I'm not so sure, based on your ongoing assaults on my requests for objectivity for BOTH.

PS: If I cite evidence and you fail repeated requests for the same, which of us is lacking credibility?

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey:
Your site continues to block messages. Three of my replies to Anon 1 were deleted, as were four of their responses to me (after I emailed them).

Is there a way to fix this problem? It looks like comments are being censored.

sledge said...

I don't think anything is being censored. Some of my posts have been in support of ideas CDV doesn't exactly see the same way. But he let them stand.

Sometimes it takes a few minutes before they appear after being posted. And you have to refresh the page.

CB I might suggest that you are a guest in someone else's house. CDV sets the agenda and the tone. There is nothing wrong with stating a different opinion. But don't think for a minute that it will change the agenda or tone. The odds of someone changing their minds to match your opinion is pretty slim, I might even say that the possibility is zero.

So to come back with basically the same arguments over and over and over is futile and a waste. It accomplishes nothing.

If the reason for it is the name calling and the clever verbal attacks you should just let it go.

This is a black blog, created by a black man mainly for black people to discuss issues as they see them.

We whites, if you are white, are basically seen as guests. But we aren't seen as part of the group because the black members have far more in common with each others life experiences than they in common with us and ours.

I wish I could argue against that but I honestly don't think I can. All people have things in common. But all people are part of one culture or another as well. This blog is about their culture.

My suggestion, and I'm not trying to be snobby, is to give your opinion and learn what you can.

It's pretty interesting.

nomad said...

@CB
I like to play with words. Savor the paradox. The color of a mind. Imagine that.

ColorBind said...

@Sledge: Thanks for the suggestions, and I am here to learn. My race doesn't matter. I appreciate the truth, whatever it is. And I understand I am a guest -- which is why I am more polite than I might otherwise be in the face of onslaughts from Chauncey. (You know, I get tired of effectively being called a racist moron and told I don't know what I know). I don't believe I'm attacking, I'm just defending myself (call if "Stand Your Ground")

I commented on something that I saw as insincere or untrue, and have repeatedly asked for evidence backing the assertion. Rather than provide it, Chauncey attacks me from several angles, except the one at hand.

I believe I have played along here precisely in line with the tone that Chauncey has set. Most of what I have written here has been in direct response to his attacks on me.

I just want to know the facts behind his positions, if he has any. I have given my opinion, been assaulted for it, and tried to learn more. It hasn't worked, but not for lack of my trying.

If someone came on this site and stated as fact that Trayvon Martin was high on crack and jumped Zimmerman because he was Hispanic, I would expect somebody to stand up for him. Chauncey says he is invested in making sure the basic rights of private citizens are respected. If you look at my words, I think that's precisely what I have been saying.

Apparently, CDV doesn't have the facts I keep asking for -- facts that he asserted. And considering his apparent intelligence, that is very disappointing.

ColorBind said...

@Nomad: "Color of mind" was your creation. You still haven't answered how you can read mine.

@Sledge: As to the vanishing posts, I have refreshed several times to no avail. Someone on another article asked me for links. I provided them three different times, and they all vanished. After getting their email, I emailed the links to them. I just got a response saying they posted their response four times on this site, and they all disappeared. The problem is apparently with this site. That's why I mentioned it to CDV again.

chaunceydevega said...

@Sledge. I appreciate your chiming in. Yes, there are divides in public opinion and what Habermas famously called "life worlds." That having been stated we are all people, human beings, that I hope are invested in the Common Good. We may argue about what that is, how to accomplish, it, etc.

But my first commitment is to the truth--empirical truth, philosophical truth, moral truth, scientific truth and the like. I am a pragmatist. I call b.s. whenever I see it. I am also human. Thus, I am open to rethinking positions, making critical interventions, and responding to them.

The Trayvon Martin killing is not a black or a white issue--although race is certainly operative as an element given that this is a matter of law and order, and all of the historical baggage along the color line that comes with it.

It is a matter of truth and fairness. How anyone can twist themselves into a knot defending George Zimmerman when any honest person would admit that if Trayvon were white that this matter would not even be up for discussion.

Hell if Zimmerman did this to a white woman the same folks crying to defend Zimmerman now would screaming about black hispanic killers.

In all, this isn't a black blog, although it is run by a human being who happens to be "black" in America, it is a space for reasoned and reasonable discourse based on certain understandings of empirical truth and reason.

The Travyon Martin saga is vexing because many are giving every benefit in the world to a person who appears by all accounts to be incompetent, a bit nutty, a pathological wannabe cop, with a history of violent behavior, who ignores the police, carries a gun when he should not, and obsessively chasing down people he racially profiles while at the same time assuming that an innocent person in Trayvon Martin, is guilty until proven innocent.

The whole thing is a sick mirror for a sick society.

Here is an obvious element that few have mentioned. A colleague pointed something out that was very sharp: if Zimmerman wants credibility as a fake cop wannabe block watch freak who hands out business cards to neighbors one would think he would be skilled enough to distinguish between someone casing houses and planning a theft and Trayvon Martin, someone walking home with candy and iced tea.

As I said above, Zimmerman is a tragic clown and deserves to be in jail with the rest of the failed perps. Will that happen? We shall see. I hope the DA has a bombshell to drop; I doubt it.

chaunceydevega said...

@Colornumbskulltroglodyte.

I have been so very kind to you. Trust me, you have no idea of the type of "onslaught" I am capable of virtually or in person. I have been an imminently patient person with someone who I think is operating in bad faith and is trolling for attention.

Zimmerman made dozens of calls to the police, apparently even about black kids who were 7 or 8 years old walking down the street. Hell, on the tape he sounds obsessed. In the Reuters story, his own black "informant" suggests that the neighborhood was under siege by black brigands.

Ultimately Mr. Colorminded the first right we have is to be safe in our person. Zimmerman made a series of willful choices that violated Trayvon Martin's basic human rights. This is all Zimmerman's fault.

Or do you want to suggest that Trayvon Martin someone instigated this matter himself? Please say yes.

Some other inconvenient facts--why no mention of Trayvon Martin screaming for help or his phone call with his girlfriend where he says he is being stalked by someone? The voice analysts--who you love when they say "coon" is "cold"--said Zimmerman is not crying for help...one more lie he is caught in by the way.

How does that factor into your "analysis?"

Zimmerman is a product of a society and culture that is prefaced on suspicion and hostility towards people of color...in particular black men.

Why wasn't he calling the cops on any unidentified white people walking down the street? Why would he get so worked up in hunting someone down to perhaps call them "coons"--I don't buy the new "analysis" for what it is work, and at the very least calling them "fucking assholes."

Maybe I am a bad neighbor; I have never been moved to chase people down, drive after them, and get so personally invested that I call the cops so often they know me by name. I have never been so personally enraged as to stalk someone on a public street. Dude is off his meds to pardon a phrase.

You are so invested in defending his "rights" that you forget the rights of the person he killed. This is rooted in a deep belief that some people are expendable and their rights secondary to others. The pattern you have offered suggests that black people's rights are contingent and secondary to the whims of others. Sorry, I don't live in that world.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: Since you asked....

"my first commitment is to the truth--empirical truth, philosophical truth, moral truth, scientific truth"

"It is a matter of truth and fairness"

"[this] is a space for reasoned and reasonable discourse based on...truth and reason."


Those are YOUR WORDS. They are also MY STANDARDS. There is ZERO bad faith on my part. And if you live by your words above, you should accept that.

We do NOT know who started the altercation. We DO know that Zimmerman followed Martin (to follow the directions of the NW sign, and likely to see where he went -- as (per Reuters) other "suspects" had gotten away. Until SOMEBODY hit the other (and we DO NOT KNOW who hit first -- we know that Zimmerman had wounds, and Martin was shot), there were two people exchanging words. I have yet to hear anything that says Zimmerman said anything that would be considered threatening. (IF YOU HAVE SUCH INFORMATION, PLEASE SHARE IT).

The transcript I have seen has Martin's girlfriend saying he was FOLLOWED, not stalked or harassed. (IF YOU HAVE OTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SHARE IT). There were screams for help. There are conflicting reports of whose voice it was. (WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE).

Trayvon's girlfriend said nothing of a gun, indicating Zimmerman did not expose it. (IF YOU HAVE OTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SHARE IT).

CNN's best analysis is that there was no "coon" stated. The Arrest Affidavit didn't make the claim, either. Why should we believe otherwise?

Why didn't Zimmerman call the cops on white people in the neighborhood? It's a fair question.
It's possible he didn't see any white people he didn't know. It's possible that the suspects reported for the break-ins were black. A lot of things are possible. That doesn't mean any of them are the gospel.

I have NEVER forgotten about the person Zimmerman killed. I have repeatedly stated it was a tragedy and that both persons should have had the same rights. Please DO NOT continue to make accusations about what you imagine me to be thinking. It is insulting to me and beneath you. (You will notice that I have spent some time here defending the rights of Martin. I have yet to see you write a word on behalf of Zimmerman's rights. Fair?

Speaking of which, kindly look at the ways you have addressed me, and then tell me how "very kind" you have been to me.

"Ultimately the first right we have is to be safe in our person." (YOUR WORDS AGAIN). I agree. But since we don't know who started the fight, doesn't that standard apply to BOTH MARTIN AND ZIMMERMAN? Zimmerman indeed made the choice to get a better look at Martin. Unless you have a law book I'm unaware of, asking a stranger in a neighborhood plagued by break-ins if they belong is NOT a violation of any civil rights. (PLEASE DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE). Everything beyond that point is speculation. (AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, KINDLY PROVIDE IT.) So, shouldn't we use the same standards of judgment on both parties?

True, Zimmerman does live in this society (or at least he used to, no thanks to emotional charges from all sides). That doesn't mean he has racist tendencies. Accounts indicate his leanings were in the opposite direction. Could non-racism be his first principles? Why not? That's what his history indicates.

Why are you so dead set against anyone being able to view this world in a non-racist way? Do you claim Mother Teresa was a racist?
(I'm not claiming to be Mother Teresa -- it's just an example, so don't bother going there).

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey (continued)...

ANY "deep belief that some people are expendable and their rights secondary to others" is YOURS. IT is NOT mine, so kindly stop pretending it is so that you can make your point. (AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE DISPLAY IT). From your words here, you indicate that Zimmerman's rights are secondary to Martin's. (Note that I have consistently stated their rights should be and should have been equal). You can theorize about how Martin MAY HAVE been treated had he survived. That is just speculation. I don't live in the world you wrongly imagine for me, and I have the humility and honesty not to pretend that I can read the minds of others to assert that they do.

You think Zimmerman is guilty, no matter what the evidence says. I say we should judge both Martin and Zimmerman by the facts. Please tell me how this is being unfair.

I certainly don't expect "fair" treatment from you here, as I long ago learned that you enjoy being condescending to those who don't share your views. But I will not believe it is unfair or racist to ask that Zimmerman and Martin be accorded the same objectivity. Yes, I know, Martin is dead. Got that,it's clear, and it should not have happened. Zimmerman is alive, and we don't know if he would be had he not shot Martin.

That's the basic point of my words. We know some things, and some things we DO NOT KNOW. We shouldn't MAKE IT UP just to fit our worldview. We should be able to exchange facts.

And we should all live by your words at the top of this post.

Fair enough?????

chaunceydevega said...

@I am self-flagellating. I must have guilt over a deed in a past life.

1. You are very deep in the sickness of white racism, you recite its logic and principles without even thinking about it. Trayvon was assumed guilty by association. How? an innocent person who "looks like those" assholes was walking down the street. X equals Y. Therefore he must be suspicious. Why? Because he is black and young and on zimmerman's turf.

2. A person without police authority who acts extrajudicially, and especially against the orders of the police, is by definition a vigilante. Zimmerman is one.

3. "We do NOT know who started the altercation. We DO know that Zimmerman followed Martin" Yes, we know that Zimmerman started the altercation and series of events by not keeping his cop jokey wannabe behind in the car.

4. "Why didn't Zimmerman call the cops on white people in the neighborhood? It's a fair question.
It's possible he didn't see any white people he didn't know." By implication black people he does not know are suspects and criminals. Dude, you are deep in the white racial frame. Do you even read your arguments aloud?

5. " I have yet to hear anything that says Zimmerman said anything that would be considered threatening." These assholes always get away, his heavy obsessive pornographic breathing as he acted out a cop fantasy on the telephone with the dispatcher. Yes, that sounds like someone who is saying and is capable of very threatening behavior.

chaunceydevega said...

continued--

6. "The transcript I have seen has Martin's girlfriend saying he was FOLLOWED, not stalked or harassed. (IF YOU HAVE OTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SHARE IT).

He was obviously scared on the phone and told her he was afraid. A strange man following me at night in a car who has ill intent and imagines himself to be batman as I mind my business walking home is the very definition of harassment and stalking. Are you that dim?

7.
"There were screams for help. There are conflicting reports of whose voice it was."

Which is it? The CNN "debunking" of "coons" is okay by those "experts." But, when other experts, equally if not more so qualified, say it was Trayvon yelling for help that evidence is not sufficient. Take that confederate money elsewhere. I wouldn't allow that from my undergraduates, I hope you can think more rigorously than that.

8. "True, Zimmerman does live in this society (or at least he used to, no thanks to emotional charges from all sides)." More revealing. Zimmerman the victim. I thought you guys believed in "personal responsibility." Zimmerman brought this all on himself.

9. "That doesn't mean he has racist tendencies. Accounts indicate his leanings were in the opposite direction. Could non-racism be his first principles? Why not? That's what his history indicates." More childish thinking. Are you an island onto yourself? There is a book called the Myth of Individualism that you need to read. His history suggests a pathological obsession with crime and black people.

10. "Why are you so dead set against anyone being able to view this world in a non-racist way? Do you claim Mother Teresa was a racist?"

People used to think the world was flat too. There is a test for infant cognitive development where at a certain age babies realize that by covering their eyes they in fact cannot be made invisible. On these matters you have the mental, intellectual, and cognitive development of a child. Do grow up if you want to play in the big kids pool. If Mother Theresa grew up in this society,then yes she too, like all of, would have some deep baggage about racism, class, and likely gender as well.

11. "But since we don't know who started the fight, doesn't that standard apply to BOTH MARTIN AND ZIMMERMAN? Zimmerman indeed made the choice to get a better look at Martin." More foolishness. Zimmerman started this whole escapade. If you can't see that you are indeed lost.

12. "I say we should judge both Martin and Zimmerman by the facts. Please tell me how this is being unfair." Dead men tell no tales, do they Colorbindandblindandmyopic?

13. "I certainly don't expect "fair" treatment from you here, as I long ago learned that you enjoy being condescending to those who don't share your views."

I have been infinitely kind and patient with you. Now you have earned my attention. Is that what you want? I was hoping others would take care of your foolishness, but alas. Sometimes you need to take the garbage out yourself.

I am not condescending. I just call out foolishness such as white victimology and lazy thinking when I see it. When someone is wedded to defending a vigilante thug I call them out. Not hard.

Weird Beard said...

@CB
You keep asking for facts and evidence that are sufficiently proven under the law. The law is an insufficent instrument to measure the racism in this case. Being a racist is not illegal. Operating under the White racial framework is not illegal. Having (or temporarily being lended, for the sake of continued black oppression) white privilege is not illegal. Existing within a system that disproportionately enforces the highest good for whites while disproportionately oppressing people of color (or of a darker color) is not illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You call for the white racial frameworks understanding of wrong, and illegal, and demand evidence and facts as understood by the white racial framework-which inherently lacks understanding and is blind to the animus of racial dynamics and their manifestations. You are asking questions from a lower level of racial awareness, you are getting answers from a higher level of racial awareness. You can't understand them while continuing to operate from your lower level of awareness. So until you up your awareness, none of this will make sense. Zimmerman has the benefit of the pigmentation for the protection of the collective in this circumstance. This is manifest in the umpteen points that have been revealed to you here. You are right, much of this will never be reflected in a court of (white) law to the degree that it holds anyone accountable for it. Zimmerman by your standards and potentially (white) legal standards may not be guilty of anything. My standard and understanding of racism is crazy to the white racial framework, and seemingly crazy to you. Rest assured, your view is normal, and will probably play out as so in court. Feel vindicated.

Anonymous said...

Make up any story you want to, another black boy was shot dead by some adult wanna be sheriff. Same old same old... creepy Florida natives actually believe Zimmerman's story! Oh and they support their husbands carrying concealed weapons. White trash with guns, alive and well!

Anonymous said...

Professor would you please address the Martin's statement of their belief in GZ's self defense ploy. I need time to read your entire essay again but at first read it's omitted. Thank you for your truth.

[I'm calling it a ploy because I'm convinced he's a murderer.]

[Is ploy as negative as I want it to be here?]

OC

D. said...

4. "Why didn't Zimmerman call the cops on white people in the neighborhood? It's a fair question.
It's possible he didn't see any white people he didn't know." By implication black people he does not know are suspects and criminals. Dude, you are deep in the white racial frame. Do you even read your arguments aloud?


I know you're taking this dead seriously CDV, but that's fucking funny. Nice Brain picking.

D. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: Just because I don't believe race has to be a part of everything doesn't make me less intelligent than you are.

Just because I say there are things we do not know -- things you take as etched in steel -- doesn't make my position wrong.

I choose to let the evidence decide. I choose not to make this a racial issue. You can steer my responses in one direction and then criticize me for answering that question, but that is dishonest on your part. So are your claims as to my racial biases, because you claim to know me better than I know myself, and better than people who have known me for years. You also claim to know Zimmerman better than his own history. How can that be?

Go ahead and live in your comfy little world of priors and denial of the rights of others, while hypocritically claiming to be fully vested in the rights of others. It's tiring trying to make honest comments, and getting trapped in a Wonderland game where you get to set any rules you like to fit your needs.

I am not a racist. I want the truth, no matter who it implicates.

So sad that you don't believe in such a standard.

BTW: Much of your "case" above is also speculation. Let's wait for the trial and see what FACTS emerge.

PS: If you can read your comments to me above and claim you are NOT condescending, you are willfully ignorant and dishonest. (I'm assuming you are not illiterate).

PPS: Just exactly what is it that you teach your undergrads? I'm guessing it's all wrapped up in your racial tunnel vision.... It certainly isn't math, where hard data is used to make conclusions.

chaunceydevega said...

@colorstruckdumb.

"@Chauncey: Just because I don't believe race has to be a part of everything doesn't make me less intelligent than you are."

Yes, actually it does. If you know anything about American society, anything at all, you would realize how foolish your statement is. Again, you are so trapped in myopic white privilege--and there are people of color with that sickness too--you are incapable of seeing that you are like a child who believes in Santa Claus.

You are akin to a grown ass man in his 30s or 40s waiting for old Saint Nick to show up and bring him toys, when in reality Santa is sneaking into your mom's bedroom and laying pipe while you sit rocking back and forth wearing your jammies in front of the Christmas Tree.

I was so kind and patient with you, I even wrote a very thorough rebuttal of your specious claims and observations. No detailed response as a courtesy? As I said, I am taking out the garbage. You are the old milk or feta cheese that has fallen out of the bottom of the garbage bag into the bottom of the can--fetid and rotten.

Up your game or move along.

manjitomoe said...

Who gives a flying monkeyfuck about that jigaboo Tray VON, who called himself "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA".

Oh yeyass oh yeyass, it look to me like dat dere dumass nigga dun reachd hz limit yo.

CNu said...

Well CDV, you did yoeman's work and rendered a proper, point-by-point acquittal of your view of this case - along with a pointed rebuttal of what CB believes to be settled fact in this case (his denials of any such convictions notwithstanding.)

WeirdBeird put his finger precisely on the psychocultural terror of the situation; Being a racist is not illegal. Operating under the White racial framework is not illegal. Having (or temporarily being lended, for the sake of continued black oppression) white privilege is not illegal. Existing within a system that disproportionately enforces the highest good for whites while disproportionately oppressing people of color (or of a darker color) is not illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong. You call for the white racial frameworks understanding of wrong, and illegal, and demand evidence and facts as understood by the white racial framework-which inherently lacks understanding and is blind to the animus of racial dynamics and their manifestations. You are asking questions from a lower level of racial awareness, you are getting answers from a higher level of racial awareness. You can't understand them while continuing to operate from your lower level of awareness. So until you up your awareness, none of this will make sense. Zimmerman has the benefit of the pigmentation for the protection of the collective in this circumstance. This is manifest in the umpteen points that have been revealed to you here. You are right, much of this will never be reflected in a court of (white) law to the degree that it holds anyone accountable for it. Zimmerman by your standards and potentially (white) legal standards may not be guilty of anything.

Without intending to do so, you have each underscored the futility of anti-racist conversation - because it's very hard work - very taxing - to effectively articulate aspects of emotional awareness and emotional cognition to folks who don't share it.

Really, nothing short of epiphany and a moment of genuine conscience can serve to ignite it.

CNu said...

Ironically CDV - and fairly obviously - you also hate those lacking your own emotional awareness - an awareness borne to some extent (a tiny extent) of necessity - but which you have assiduously and one might say "religiously" cultivated.

(I used the qualifier "to some extent" because I know for a fact that NEVER IN YOUR LIFE have you witnessed or experienced anything remotely approaching the overtly racist cultural and social ecology in which folks of our parents generation were embedded.)

But back to the hate;

You are akin to a grown ass man in his 30s or 40s waiting for old Saint Nick to show up and bring him toys, when in reality Santa is sneaking into your mom's bedroom and laying pipe while you sit rocking back and forth wearing your jammies in front of the Christmas Tree.

rotflmbao - @Belsidean bon mot.

I'm curious Bro. deVega - did your parents despise emotionally and cognitively impaired white folks as much as you do?

You really MUST read Black Internationale and Black Empire - it's one weekend's worth of pure comic book pleasure. Then, at some subsequent interval when you want to actually challenge yourself, peep Jon Woodson's To Make a New Race. Trust, it'll be clear as mud without an extensive familiarity with work literature (at a minimum). But it may point to interesting new professional and personal vistas warranting your exploration.

ColorBind said...

@ChaunceyWhoIsNotCondescendingDespiteThousandsOfWordsProvingOtherwise:

CNU made a couple of valid points: You have stated YOUR VIEWS of this case, and misstated my point: I DO NOT believe we have SETTLED FACT in this case, we have EVIDENCE TO DATE. That means your convictions are premature. That's the point here.

And here's my response to your "rebuttal", although the term "specious" applies to your words, not mine:

"Assumed....must be...by definition (YOUR DEFINITION?)...we know (WHO IS WE AND HOW DO WE KNOW?)...by implication (WHOSE IMPLICATION?)...sounds like...obviously scared (OBVIOUS BY WHAT OBJECTIVE STANDARD?)...other experts (WHO ARE OPPOSED BY OTHERS, NEITHER OF WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN)...I thought you guys believed (US GUYS? YOUR EVIDENCE?)...his history suggests (WHICH PART OF HIS HISTORY? WHAT ABOUT HIS HISTORY THAT SUGGESTS OTHERWISE?)...a test of infantile cognitive development (WHICH HAS PRECISELY WHAT TO DO WITH THE CASE BEFORE US?)...more foolishness (FOOLISH TO STATE THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHO THREW THE FIRST PUNCH?)...colorbindblindandmyopic (FOR STATING BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THE FACTS?)...infinitely kind and patient" (SEE AROUND ONE THOUSAND WORDS ABOVE PROVING THE OPPOSITE. SOME WOULD SAY THAT IN THE FACE OF YOUR "CONDESCENSION" IT IS I WHO HAVE BEEN KIND AND PATIENT).

Now I have illustrated your rebuttal for what it is: a whole bunch of subjective wordings that demonstrate this is what CNU saw, and which you refuse to admit: These are YOUR VIEWS. This case will be decided by SETTLED FACTS -- WHEN WE HAVE THEM. That's my point.

That's not a racial point, or some infantile repressive gene hyperventilating. It's the way our legal system works. This case is in the legal system -- not in your class room. (AGAIN, I ASK: JUST EXACTLY WHAT IS IT THAT YOU TEACH?)

And since going down is a favorite of yours (either via condescension of via your stated favorite activities), here is a bottom line for you.

My perspective on this case would not change if George Zimmerman were black.

It's pretty clear that you can not honestly say the same thing.

And that says a whole lot more about the reality here than all the ancient theories and twisting word suppositions you can create.

This is (or at least should be) about justice not race. And that standard -- in my world -- goes for both parties, dead or alive.

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorstillconfused

"My perspective on this case would not change if George Zimmerman were black. "

You have a good many examples of classic racism denying, deflecting claims in your posts. Are you read to trot out the "some of my best friends are black" bullet points. Your point of view would likely change, even if you are unaware of it. There is much research in cognitive psyche about priming effects, subconscious bias, and how racial attitudes operates in most white test takers, and many blacks, in such a way as to exhibit profound anti-black biases.

There are law review articles which have frighteningly documented how a combination of media effects and the deep link between ape/monkey/racist imagery leads white juries to disproportionately give black defendants the death penalty. I think you should go take the Implicit Association Test online and then come back and talk to us.

"This is (or at least should be) about justice not race. And that standard -- in my world -- goes for both parties, dead or alive."

You live in a world of one--fantasy land. Justice and race are deeply conflated in this country. Do a little homework and reading on the prison industrial complex and disparate sentencing and then come back and talk to us.

I am being patient again. The referee would step in and stop the fight at this point Colorabouttobtko'd. I am just playing with you, letting you lean on the ropes while I take work the kidneys. There is not shame in letting the ref stop the fight.

chaunceydevega said...

@Cnu. I will check those out. I come from a long line of troublesome black people who enjoyed studying pwt and white ethnics who thought they were de facto better than black and brown people.

Anit-racism is in a crisis, if not on life support. Racism and white supremacy are so evolved at this point they operate independently of the actors who benefit from it. There was a conference last week which touched on this and I am going to share some of their press releases. It confirms what we already now, but still disturbs.

You can't live your life fighting these battles. Exhausting and the enemy wins by attrition. I can't imagine life under Jim and Jane Crow...or slavery. Simple can't. But, as always, we would find a way to survive.

sledge said...

Anon 12:0 Said....
"Oh and they support their husbands carrying concealed weapons. White trash with guns, alive and well!"

Look around you. The world is full of predatory criminals. And every day more desperate people are joining their ranks out of necessity.

If that weren't bad enough more and more people are under intense pressure financially. Moving from middle class to poor and from poor to extreme poverty.

There are now seven tent cities in the woods in my county. And one non profit has just received a grant to build an official county approved one.

Many people under stress and don't think rationally. Some have convinced themselves that they are bad ass dangerous people and fly off the handle over the slightest thing.

I don't know where it ends, but I do know this. I've taught my family members what the Gov spent a fortune teaching me.

And come what may my white trash wife, my inbred kids and my under developed self will be carrying as a last resort.

If you've made other decisions. More power to you.

CNu said...

Bro. deVega, very obviously - words fall short as adequate weapons in the fight. The reason I emphasize the indispensible importance of absolute clarity concerning our economic context is that our immediate forbears never had to endure open-ended economic contraction and possible collapse.

Our progress in this country is measured across a backdrop of continuous growth of the real economy punctuated by one financial (not real economic) disruption - which disruption was resolved by the internecine industrialized murder of 15% of the white able-bodies making up the developed nations involved in WW-II.

The true killer-ape is only 6 missed primary meals away. Look at how they've been hooting and thumping their chests here now for a minute. Look at how they're hooting and thumping their chests in europe.

Shit bout to get hectic..., jes sayyin. (I'm on my phone - so can't go much further right now - but promise more later)

CNu said...

Really really good stuff today, many riches disclosed- as also limitations of language - when confronting a manifestation of what L.L. Whyte termed the european dissociation and Christopher Bollas even more powerfully and thoroughly termed normotic illness...,

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: Interesting analogy with the referee -- as you have yet to even step in the ring. You stand outside the ropes and toss around theories without addressing me.

There are many examples of lots of things. Do I label you based on "lots of things" I've seen elsewhere? That would be dishonest, no?

The problem here is that you think the world is neatly encased in your theories (wherever they came from).
And you refuse to believe that others might reside somewhere else. Sadly, that shows a very sheltered life path for you. Did your parents keep you away from independent thinkers? Were you conditioned to distrust people who saw things differently?

I prefer to live in the real world where people deal with each other face to face, not based on what some old book or study says. BTW, I already took your Implicit Association Test. It disproved your theory of me.

I understand the prison system, and I understand that more blacks are in prison proportionally than whites. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. (Unless you believe the attorneys are going to base their decisions on some book you have on your shelf).

You can make up all the theories you want about me. Seems you would be intelligent enough to accept that not all pegs fit into your holes. Ah, but that would require some open-mindedness on your part, something I have yet to witness.

I understand your fascination with the kidneys, as much of your argument is waste. For a change, try working between the ears, which is where I prefer to focus. (AGAIN, I ASK, WHAT DO YOU TEACH?)

Chauncey, you would make a most excellent magician: Dressed in fancy black with lots of false pockets, and a specialist in misdirection. Sorry, I don't play that game.

Yes, the referee would have stopped this "fight". Because with your deflections and denying, and refusal to accept my right to be me (despite your claims to the contrary), you weren't willing to step into the ring. Pathetic? You decide.

sledge said...

@ ColorBind

Why????

The last word will never arrive and in the scheme of things it doesn't matter.


@CNu

Quit making me look stuff up. LOL!

nomad said...

CD, this is some of your best stuff (that I have read). You've got the patience of Job. CBind is in a river in Egypt.

ColorBind said...

@Nomad: I'm not the one in denial of each individual's rights to be themselves. CD was the one who claimed to be so firmly invested in that right.


@Chauncey: Because I know you'll want to know my actual results on the
Implicit Association test, I took it twice, months ago, and this week.

Here are my results:

Then: A slight automatic preference for Old over Young and
Little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

Now: "Your data suggest a strong implicit preference for Barack Obama compared to Newt Gingrich" and "Your data suggest a slight implicit preference for Black People compared to White People."

Those are the results of YOUR TEST.

Now how's your "knowledge" of me doing? YOUR TEST says you are WRONG about me. Now are you going to argue with YOUR TEST???

Please....I humbly await your reasoned response.

CNu said...

@CDV

Normotic illness used in a contextualizing sentence or several..., including a diagnosis of what has happened to those cognitively crippled by the european dissociation - and prognosis for what may happen as a result of feedback loops triggered by their killer-ape acting out.

People’s “quotas of aggression” are all too often high enough to kill both acquaintances and strangers. During the Vietnam War, for example, Ho Chi Minh’s forces killed fifty-eight thousand Americans. But during the same time span, Americans murdered far more Americans at home—and most of those murdered were acquaintances (or even more intimate). According to political scientists Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla, “An ineluctable fact is that human intercourse all too naturally produces circumstances in which reasonable people regard kill or be killed as the best option available.”

This reality is so obvious to biologists that, despite his personal aversion to believing that men are innate killers, German ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt found himself listing the universal traits of men the world over that are vital to war: loyalty to group members; readiness to react aggressively to outside threats; motivation to fight, dominate, and act territorially; universal fear of strangers; and intolerance of those who deviate from group norms.

Anon 1 said...

Chauncey you wrote to Colorbind: “He was obviously scared on the phone and told her he was afraid. A strange man following me at night in a car who has ill intent and imagines himself to be batman as I mind my business walking home is the very definition of harassment and stalking. Are you that dim?”

If you go to your posting What Would W.E.B. Du Bois Say, Colorbind commented: “Trayvon could have felt threatened by Zimmerman, although that's not the impression I got from the girl friend's relating of the call. Physically, I doubt that Trayvon would feel threatened by a guy five inches shorter than him.” Followed by: “If you are really "afraid" and you are 70 feet from home, why not just jog home, instead of turning around and attacking the person you are supposedly afraid of? “ And then: “Normal people are followed by others probably dozens of times a day. You can hardly walk down the street without being followed by somebody. Why would I consider them a threat unless they actually physically threatened me, or I had a reason to feel guilty? I doubt Trayvon walked through that neighborhood expecting to never see anybody walking near him. Likewise, Trayvon would not have been a threat to Zimmerman unless George was physically threatened.”

1.) Any unarmed, non-violent, child would reasonably feel threatened by a stranger flowing them in the dark; 2.) Colorbind unapologetically takes Zimmerman’s account of the events that Trayvon attacked him; 3.) According to Florida’s Stand Your Ground which is based on one's reasonable perception (fear) of another's action, Trayvon would have been justified using force against Zimmerman,

I should have known Colorbind was a lost cause from these prior statements. So to answer your question, yes Colorbind really is that dim.

ColorBind said...

@Anon 1. Dim? Chauncey CREATED the ill intent and the "Batman" fiction. It is not as of yet any thing other than a fiction, so any reaction to that fiction is also supposition.

I did NOT unapologetically take Zimmerman's account as fact. I have REPEATEDLY stated that we DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. All we have so far is the evidence to date, which is not enough to convict either party.

If you were half as diligent as you suppose yourself to be in tracking my comments, you would have seen that many times. Again, you use the term "child" very loosely. I recall you (or some "Anonymous") also called him "infant". And while you automatically paint Zimmerman as violent, how can you objectively call Martin "non-violent"? Aren't you guilty of the same assumptions you accuse me of? (And before you go there, I'm not saying Martin was violent. I'm saying you need to use the same standards all around, something I have been TRYING to do here). If you've been paying attention, I've also said that if Zimmerman assaulted Martin, then Martin would have the same Stand Your Ground rights. Please do not call me dim while proving yourself to be so.

CNu said...

Chauncey CREATED the ill intent and the "Batman" fiction. It is not as of yet any thing other than a fiction, so any reaction to that fiction is also supposition.

Please grace us with your objective characterization of the intentions of an unauthorized armed pursuer who disobeys a police dispatcher's instruction to break off his pursuit?

Thanks.

CNu said...

Please correct me if I misunderstood. What this will also come down to is the idea of "threat." In our society, it is understood that black people-old, young, disabled, in wheel chairs, wearing suits, or yes, sagging like ign'ts are an existential threat. This is so primed into the collective subconscious that Zimmerman will walk.

@CDV

As a student of this subject matter thoroughly capable of articulating his emotional cognition and awareness - and - as one who palpably despises whites suffering the affective attention deficit disorder that L.L. Whyte termed "european dissociation" - what percentage of black folks would you estimate shares your smoldering contempt for these gunned-up killer-ape retardates with a 400 year history of bad behavior?

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorconfusedandfrustratedcoughingupbloodinthecornerasyourtrainerbegsyoutostop.

If you honestly took the IAT and came up with those results you are even more profoundly screwed up and confused than I initially thought. Your daily life must be a living hell given all the cognitive, subconscious, preconscious, and conscious dissonance you are experiencing. I hope you are on some strong meds.

@Cnu. I honestly never thought of it beyond anecdotes. That would be fun to write up a grant for under some wonderfully neutral sounding title. My gut, with limited sample size, and pure conjecture is that many of the young college age students of color I have encountered know something is wrong but do not have the language skills or confidence to express it.

The few times I have been dumbstruck have been when black students in particular make apologies for white racism--because they have white friends--and/or want to excuse-make for why white people have a right to be angry at blacks and people of color for talking about racism, as well as the license to use the word "nigger."

I just smile, telling them they will at some point need to reassess their friendships, and perhaps, if they are lucky, are going to have a painful awakening about the true nature of the world.

What percentage would you guess?

sabrinabee said...

"I did NOT unapologetically take Zimmerman's account as fact. I have REPEATEDLY stated that we DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. "

Yes you did. You may have repeatedly stated the above, which by the way NO ONE is claiming to know all the facts, but you present you argument from the position that Trayvon "may" be the culprit. This is a false approach from the beginning. The scenario has been broken down to you rather patiently and yet you continue to cry for facts to prove that Trayvon may have deserved to be dead.  It is rather insulting to any thinking person. You seem to think that you are operating on a higher cognitive ability but you hardly ever address the arguments put before you but rather practice a sort of circular word salad, a la Palin style. You pick out sections to respond to rather than examining the argument on a whole. You have yet to answer the question that might serve to have you take the position of Trayvon and place yourself in his shoes. So i am going to ask it again.  What would you have done or felt if you were Trayvon?

"And while you automatically paint Zimmerman as violent, how can you objectively call Martin "non-violent"?"

Trayvon, is a child by legal definition, no matter how big and scary you want to paint him.  But, for whatever reason you wish to view Trayvon as an aggressor, a FACT is that Trayvon was not acting aggressively when George first observed him on that night.  How do we know this? Because, during the phone call to 911, Georges' words were that Trayvon "looked" suspicious (FACT) not that he was doing anything that would be deemed suspicious activity. Not menacing anyone, not trying doorjambs, not peeking into windows, not crouching in shadows, not FOLLOWING anyone. All things we've come to associate with nefarious behavior.

On the contrary, George, who indeed has a history of violence (as an adult) directed not only against the woman he supposedly loved, which required a filing of a protective order, but also against an ATF officer, which resulted in charges that were later bargained down, has proven that he is willing to come to fisticuffs with whomever angers him. (FACTS) George's call to 911 shows that he was in an angered state, "these assholes always get away!" (FACT)

" Aren't you guilty of the same assumptions you accuse me of? "

Not assumption, logic based on past behavior.

"(And before you go there, I'm not saying Martin was violent. I'm saying you need to use the same standards all around, something I have been TRYING to do here). "

The standards are NOT the same, nor are the two on equal footing. One is dead through no fault of his own and CANNOT tell his side. The other took his life and has a vested interest in making the act appear justifiable. 

"If you've been paying attention, I've also said that if Zimmerman assaulted Martin, then Martin would have the same Stand Your Ground rights." 

Except that Zimmerman did assault Martin and Martin did not have the same rights because he was pulled into a fight with a man that knew, win or lose, he was armed, and always had the option to kill.

Cont.

sabrinabee said...

Here's some more facts for you.

Zimmerman, exited his car with a loaded weapon. (FACT)

Zimmerman did not disclose to the 911 operator that he was armed although he was already in an angered state from the perceived injustice of Trayvon being in "HIS" neighborhood. (FACT)

At a point during the 911 call Zimmerman stated 'He is running!" (FACT) This serves to indicate that Trayvon was not looking for a fight, it is non aggressive to run, but was trying to get back to where his father was.

After, Zimmerman proclaimed that Trayvon was running and expressed his frustration, read anger, with this, the dispatcher asked if he was following him and Zimmerman replied "yes" in a voice that clearly indicate he was exerting himself.  (FACT) Now unless Zimmerman had extra weight to carry around, and since you cannot follow someone who is running by walking at a leisurely stroll, all indications point to Zimmerman CHASING Trayvon.

The dispatcher then said "we don't need you to do that, let the police handle it" and Zimmerman said "okay". However, Trayvon didn't hear this conversation so had no reason to stop running until he thought he was far enough away from George to stop. Meaning he no longer saw him. This is verified by the phone records showing that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend when he was encountered by Zimmerman. She relayed the conversation she had and overhead. (FACT) 

Somehow Zimmerman winds up face to face with Trayvon, as per the statement from the girlfriend. (FACT)  Now, if someone has run away from you to the point where they can no longer see you, the only way that you are going to encounter them again is if they come back for you, which is illogical if they were running in the first place, or if you, in fact, did not stop when you were told to but continued the pursuit and caught up with them, which is very likely if you are already angry and have a history of violence.

Now, if some strange, aggressive man whom you had just thought you had gotten away from, comes barreling back down on you, that is going to make you fearful. Especially if you are a 17 year old, trying to get back home to tell your father what happened. See, we humans are clannish, we want support, especially when we think we might be attacked. Trayvon's support was 70 yards straight way, there is nothing that is going to convince me that he turned away from that support to chase someone he was just running from. (that's logic) We humans also have a natural reaction that kicks in during fearful situations, i.e. some crazy guy who has chased us and now have us cornered. It's called "flight or fight mode" and it's a well known phenomena. Look it up. Anyway having been chased, having thought he had gotten away, then having been cornered again, since flight did not work, it's safe to assume that the next response would be to try to fight. This does not mean that George was not the aggressor, it simply means that Trayvon felt he had no other choice but to fight, after having tried running. 

Maybe the only hit that Trayvon, being a junior football player, was able to get off was a tackle at the knees which caused Zimmerman to hit his head on the pavement. Maybe this caused Zimmerman to get even angrier and decide that he was going to shoot this kid. But everything that happened up to that point paints George as the aggressor and instigator and what happened after paints him as a murderert.

sabrinabee said...

It's really quite simple, no matter how complex you want to make it. If Trayvon was allowed the presumption of innocence until proven guilty of ill intent and if Zimmerman had understood the word "watch" in the title neighborhood watch, an innocent person would not be dead.

You may not be  dim but you are being willfully obtuse and contrary. You want to paint yourself as being objective and fair-minded but if you look at your arguments, you are not being fair to the one person who was drawn into a position to have to defend himself. This was not a fight between two people who had a disagreement or came to the fight on an even playing field. This was a person who was targeted and victimized over issues that he had nothing to do with. Who had no idea what, if anything he had done wrong to this man, or why he was chasing him. Who could only assume that this was a maniac intent on harming him. It turns out he was right.

chaunceydevega said...

@Sabrina QED. Very good. I imagine Colorobsessedmadandconfused is sitting in his basement right now like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill spinning an elaborate conspiracy theory with push pins, news paper clipping, scale models, and string connecting event a to event z back to event y and then around to b or c.

I am starting to think that Colorconstipated is a performance artist trying to get attention by frustrating people.

CNu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CNu said...

What percentage would you guess?

lol, all who experience racist animus as ostracizing social or personal rejection.

fMRI shows that ostracism neuralizes like visceral pain. Moreover, that the pain response is short-circuited (buffered) by a prefrontal reflex, (calming self-talk). I would suggest that a great many other emotional *neural-ates* (correlates) to emotion exist but have as yet not been catalogued.

So in order to avoid feeling the pain of ostracism, your frontal cortex does a metabolically costly simple substitution. Instead of experiencing the emotional state neurally similar to visceral pain, one experiences a (thought) that likely becomes habitually identified with the state. An entire realm of emotional qualia are thence automatically suppressed at the moment of onset.

Stress, of which ostracism is a type, ACTIVATES the formatory (rules based, deductive, talking, or left hemispheric) part of neuralizing while it
DEACTIVATES the (fractal, inductive, liminal, right hemispheric, subconscious) neuralizing and God-only knows what other lower-level qualia
that these simulate and which routinely arise in your organism.

{p.s., do you now understand why I'm so hard on the "why don't you share my pain you uncle Tom" jiggaboo?}

Just as surely as affective deficit disorder renders the mind of the racist a broken machine, so also, and just as surely, the uninterrogated and uncontrolled automatic reaction to white socio-economic rejection compromises the proper functioning of the black mind so provoked.

sledge said...

@Sabrina

It will be interesting to see if that is they way events are presented in court.

I'm still not sure of exactly what happened that day, I have no way of knowing. But you bring up some interesting possible scenarios I hadn't thought of that do make a lot of sense. Thanks.

sabrinabee said...

@CD,
Definitely, an admirer of yours. It is like a personal mission to beat you down in your house. You definitely have the tolerance of that woman he was talking about. What was her name? Mother Teresa. We need to submit you for canonization.

@CNU
Interesting stuff on your link, subconciousness and human sociology. Just a cursory glance because i am struggling to keep my eyes open but will take a deeper look. Like the paragrph you qouted in your post.

@sledge
I am happy you are willing to consider another option. Not everything is balck and white but we can get a general idea of how things play out simply based on human observation.

ColorBind said...

@CNu: "Ill intent" and "Batman" are Chauncey's OPINION. He does NOT KNOW what was in Zimmerman's mind, and more than we know what was in Martin's. To state these attitudes as FACT is WRONG. Fair? According to the 9-11 call, Zimmerman said "OK". We do NOT KNOW what happened next. Right?????
Maybe I'm just consistent, and you're the one who's messed up.

@SabrinaBee: Try reading my words. I have consistently said we do not know for sure and that all we have right now is evidence. The EVIDENCE DOES NOT support "racist killer gunned down child in cold blood". If you have evidence to that point, PLEASE PRESENT IT. It's insulting to have you lie about what I said. I have repeatedly said that were the positions reversed, Trayvon would have had the right to shoot Zimmerman. WHAT IN THE HELL IS SO UNCLEAR ABOUT THAT? Why can't you read my words as they are written?

(Pardon my exasperation, but I'm tired of repeating my words to people on this board who refuse to read them for what they say, and insist on MAKING STUFF UP and arguing from a false premise. Yes we know that Trayvon was not aggressive at first. We do NOT know what happened next. Zimmerman has wounds. I keep saying DO NOT STATE ASSUMPTIONS AS FACT. Why do you have a problem with that. You are ready to convict Zimmerman of a cold-blooded racist murder. I say look at the EVIDENCE. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

@Chauncey the impossible. Thanks for proving my point. NOTHING I say or do fits your worldview, so I'm wrong? I took your test and got results. You don't like the results. That makes YOU screwed up not me. I took the damn test. Just for once, accept the fact that you ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. OK????

ColroBind said...

@Sabrinabee (Continued) I know Trayvon is dead, so he can't speak. And I said both SHOULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE HAD the same rights. What is unfair about that? Do you have a problem with objectivity? You ASSUME Zimmerman attacked Martin. BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE? I say we do NOT KNOW. How do you KNOW???

You seem to agree that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman first (for whatever reason) although tackling Zimmerman would not explain a broken nose (which the medical reports will or will not confirm -- neighbors have confirmed this). You might look at the map of the scene. Trayvon entered from Rinehart and had to get to Retreat View. Zimmerman's truck was quite a ways from there. If Zimmerman got close to Martin, the map says it was because Martin approached him -- which is what the 911 call also says. We do not know. But any EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO THE CONTRARY IS WELCOME.

STOP CALLING ME A LIAR FOR SAYING WE DO NOT KNOW AND SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON OPINION. YOU have some facts here, and so do I. Until ALL the facts are in, we DO NOT KNOW.

ColorBind said...

@CNu: The last comment there was not to you, it was to Chauncey. You'll note that my two part response to Sabrina also got separated, even though it was consecutively, long after my post to you and Chauncey. I'm sorry the comment ended up to you, but this is Chauncey's site that also vanished several posted comments by both myself and someone else over the past few days.

ColorBind said...

@Sabrina: Obtuse and contrary? Most of your post here is OPINION. I did not say Martin was guilty. You do NOT know that Zimmerman deemed him guilty. He deemed him suspicious, and went to ask who he was. Based on Zimmerman's actual history, he looks like anything but a racist. If you can show otherwise, PLEASE DO. I'm doing my best to be fair to both -- despite repeatedly being branded a racist for saying they should both be judged by the same standards. BOTH of them had the right to defend themselves. The question is: WHO ATTACKED WHO, and WHO HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. Is there something wrong with that? Would it make a difference to you if they had both been black?

chaunceydevega said...

@Color. I was waiting for you while finally getting around to watching Tinker Tinker Soldier Spy on the new bluray player. Waited to buy it cheap, good purchase...and ST:TNG is worth the 15 bucks btw.

I am glad you brought out the map. Part of the paranoid and conspiratorial mind is a love of maps, documents, esoteric literature, secrets, hidden knowledge and the like...fake birth certificates too.

Please explain your analysis of this case using the map, the gps data you have compiled, the lego diorama you made in the basement, and the "expert" witnesses you have "interviewed" online. Perhaps you can have a seance to get to the heart of the matter.

Colorbind you are lost, defeated these rounds. I led you into a trap, a salient (or pocket for lay people), I then cut you off after you overextended your forces.

I left my front line thin in order to bait you into a confrontation at the point of contact I chose. I have now systematically destroyed your army in detail while my allies have rolled up your flanks and rear.

Just let it go. Save your metaphorical army for the next time.

Just like Gulf War One, I will let some of your forces survive the highway of death so that you can police your own territory. Go home and heal; rearm; come back for round two.

If you continue along this path I will really lose patience and have to really really really embarrass you. It seems you take these online matters quite personally and I would not want to hurt your feelings.

ColorBind said...

@ChaunceyOnHigh: Just a final note here. I find it interesting that Sabrina wants to make you a saint for your patience in the face of my "assault". All I've done is respond to your attacks on my credibility -- because I've tried to take this beyond opinion and charges of racism and leave it to objective facts to be decided in a court of law.

It's obvious I cannot get a fair hearing here. You deflect from honest questions and call me a moron in so many many many many words. And you ask me to take a test, and then castigate me for the results I get from that test.

I have accepted the fact that you lack the ability to be fair with me. I will continue to ask that all of society be fair to BOTH Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Tell me why I'm wrong for wanting that. And try really, really, really hard and see if you can type a paragraph or two without being condescending. You really can get to be a pain in the butt. (And if you wouldn't have the same reaction if you were in my shoes, I'd love to hear why.)

D. said...

@Colorbind

I say look at the EVIDENCE. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT

She did look at all the evidence we have thus far, and devised the most plausible scenario. How much more do you want? Satellite surveillance footage?

If you honestly think that Trayvon did an about face and gave chase to Zimmerman please say so, because that is the only other possible outcome, and it would make almost no sense for Trayvon to engage in a confrontation he had already expended energy to avoid.

OTOH, if you haven't made up your mind, than you haven't made up your mind. That's no reason to go around bashing the people who have. The people on this board are not on the jury (I think), so there is no logical reason for you to be so invested in their opinions. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight.

ColorBind said...

@Sabrina: Note that my comments to you start with "continued". That is because this site keeps deleting my comments, even when they are broken up. I've taken enough abuse for today. I may come back tomorrow and recreate my first answer.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: You haven't destroyed at thing, although you're damaging your own credibility. Why would you have a problem with a map that shows where the events actually occurred? Why would you have a problem with factual evidence that will likely be used in court? Would you prefer to litigate this based on personality profiles and infantile tests? Sorry, Chauncey, that's not the way it works.

My feelings are just fine, and you are welcome to try and embarrass me.
If you think your theories of race and opinions and manipulated words will hold more sway in this case than objective evidence, have at it.

We can compare notes when the trial is over and see who is embarrassed.

@D: My mind is not made up -- and most of my responses here are to attacks on my line of thinking, which is based on evidence to date. I don't like being called stupid or dishonest, when I am neither. I don't know who approached or attacked who, but the 911 call and the neighborhood layout would tend to back Zimmerman's account. I'm open to either account being proven, but it seems unlikely that Martin couldn't have outrun Zimmerman, who would have had to park some distance away from the street sidewalk they ended up on. I don't know that we have "the most plausible" explanation yet, because there are too many conflicting accounts. But checking a google satellite map of the area is as close as we are likely to get to a surveillance video, and it seems to support Zimmerman's account.

I don't have a vested stake in this. I don't care the color of either one of them. I'm sorry that Martin is dead. And I'm sorry that Zimmerman is almost as good as dead, and at this point he's not yet been found guilty of anything.

I'm against one tragedy becoming two. And there is a possibility that when all the evidence is in, that it will be found Zimmerman was not in the wrong. It may also be found that he was. WE DO NOT KNOW.
So nobody should state as FACT that Zimmerman (or Trayvon) is guilty.

While I've made some comments here supporting Trayvon, I have yet to see anybody here make comments supporting Zimmerman's side of this. Why is that?

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorinretreatgoinghometolickwounds

"because I've tried to take this beyond opinion and charges of racism and leave it to objective facts to be decided in a court of law."

You said a mouthful here. So much evidence of the white racial frame. Profound! Racism is not an opinion in this society--and others. It is a fact of life. Racism is not an opinion son; in this society it is one of the most documented of all empirical realities and dynamics. This is old stuff, many decades in fact, across disciplines.

Racism and "justice" and "the courts?" Lord have mercy we all know those are race neutral sites and processes.

INSERT THROAT IN MOUTH AND VOMIT

Here, I think you have revealed so much of why your thinking is so limited and flat. Very good. Very very very good son. We can bring you along piggie...channeling Babe and not Lord of the Flies.

sabrinabee said...

" Try reading my words."

I've read your words. They are all over this board. Your words state how you wish to be precieved then two sentence later contradict that staement. Case in point, copied from above! ",I say we should judge both Martin and Zimmerman by the facts. Please tell me how this is being unfair." two sentences later, " Zimmerman is alive, and we don't know if he would be had he not shot Martin." 7:35 pm You automatically take the position here that Trayvon needed to be shot. What facts do you have that Trayvon was capable or willing to kill Trayvon. Why couldn't/didn't George draw his weapon upon approaching Trayvon and said "freeze" or whatever he imagined cops to say. Police procedure demand that police identify themselves and at least give a "suspect" a chance to decide if they want to comply before opening fire.

"I have consistently said we do not know for sure and that all we have right now is evidence. The EVIDENCE DOES NOT support "racist killer gunned down child in cold blood". If you have evidence to that point, PLEASE PRESENT IT. "

Facts are evidence but, see above. Trayvon was not threatening. Trayvon was RUNNING away. Predatory animals chase prey. Under the law Trayvon had a right to know what he was being met with and given the chance to decide whether to comply or not. He chose to avoid the situation by fleeing. His choice was taken away when he was actively pursued by Zimmerman, who had no legal authority to do so.

"It's insulting to have you lie about what I said. "

Pease point out where I have lied about what you said.

"i have repeatedly said that were the positions reversed, Trayvon would have had the right to shoot Zimmerman."

But, that is not what i asked. I aksed what would you have done or ffelt were you in Trayvon's shoes? Perhaps I need to be more detailed. What would you do if YOU were walking home from the store and was unarmed, and some man begins to follow you in his vehicle? Would you pick up the pace? What would YOU do if suddenly that strange man pulls over and exits his car? Would you run? What would you do if you reached what you percieved was a safe distance and suddenly that man was back? Would you prepare to defend yourself? What if YOU prepared to defend yourself and was shot? Would you be okay with that? Zimmerman could have just as easily backed away if he was assaulted. It takes two to fight. But he didn't because he was intent on forcing HIS will upon another human being.

"DO NOT STATE ASSUMPTIONS AS FACT. "

I have not state assumption as fact, i have drawn conclusions. I have speculated scenarios based on human behavior. Where i have stated facts are clearly identified with the word facts capitalize and bracketed behind them. Where i haven't there isn't and they are usually preceeded with some kind of qualifier, (may, probably, etc.) But, surely you are capable of recognizing those, right?

"The 9-11 tape shows he said "OK" and may have been returning to his car. How is that "disobeyed"? "

BTW, you reqest for vidence is narrowed down with every point proven. Above, you ask for four enumerated proofs of evidence.
"Then you make stuff up. Kindly give EVIDENCE to back your claims that 1) he decided to hunt down and kill Trayvon; 2) He stalked and harassed Trayvon; 3) He went after Trayvon for the crime of being black; 4) Zimmerman was a vigilante killer."

Now you are down to evidence of Racist Killer. Either this means that you are satisfied with the proof presented on the others or that as each of your bogus concerns are address, you knocknthem off your demand for proof list until they can be recycled onto a newer post.

sabrinabee said...

"You seem to agree that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman first (for whatever reason) although tackling Zimmerman would not explain a broken nose (which the medical reports will or will not confirm -- neighbors have confirmed this)."

You're kidding right? Okay so maybe he went for a waist tackle and his head was high enough to meet Zimmerman's nose.

"You might look at the map of the scene. Trayvon entered from Rinehart and had to get to Retreat View. Zimmerman's truck was quite a ways from there. If Zimmerman got close to Martin, the map says it was because Martin approached him ..."

You mean this map?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

That's not what it shows at all. The map shows that Zimmerman was a long way off from his car and it shows the proximity Trayvon was, yards, from getting help.

"which is what the 911 call also says."

The part that you are referring to in the 911 call was BEFORE Zimmerman was asked if he was following Trayvon. Near the beginning. Where Zimmerman tried to set up the impression of a threat by stating, "he looks suspicious, he's coming this way" Please listen to it again. It is embarrinsing for to keep repeating what you know to be incorrect. No matter how you were trained by Fox, it is becoming quite tiring to encounter trolls repeating the same points over and over again despite being debunked repeatedly. It really is like trying to converse with a two-year old.

sabrinabee said...

" Obtuse and contrary? Most of your post here is OPINION." skipped right those fact there didn't you buddy?

"You do NOT know that Zimmerman deemed him guilty." he did. He's dead.
"
"He deemed him suspicious, and went to ask who he was."

Suspicious enough to shoot, and not his place.

"Based on Zimmerman's actual history, he looks like anything but a racist."
No he looks like a violent sociopath with a penchant for domestic violancd.

" I'm doing my best to be fair to both..."

White Man's Burden

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

I'll cry for you tomorrow.
"Would it make a difference to you if they had both been black?"

Ah, the obligatory black on black defense. Surprised you hadn't tried this earlier. Guess what? They weren't.

sabrinabee said...

Forgot to credit the author of the poem.

White Man's Burden
Rudyard Kipling

CNu said...

I've tried to take this beyond opinion and charges of racism and leave it to objective facts to be decided in a court of law.

rotflmbao...,

Courts of law do NOT decide objective facts or establish truth.

Courts are rule-based systems for subjecting theory, evidence, and arguments to trial by opinion of citizen "peers"

Only science even seeks to decide objective fact by EXPERIMENTATION and constant interrogation to proof of theory, evidence and arguments.

Case in point. OJ Simpson is guilty as sin of murdering his adulterous wife and the trifling gigolo with whom she cuckolded him - however - in a court of law under rules of evidence and trial by opinion...., (and of course we all know what frustrated white folks and an extremely silly OJ did in the aftermath of being found innocent in court, to get that white woman killing negroe in the end...,)

ColorBind said...

@CNu Thanks for the easy one. It will take a bit longer to disect Sabrina's points above:

You are right. Courts do not always make the right decisions, and I, too, think O.J. was guilty.

Two points, though, since your quote is out of context thusly:

1) I stated that facts mattered in courts, not opinion.

2) I stated that I HAVE TRIED to take this beyond opinion. That's me, I'm talkin' bout. I am NOT the court, and cannot control what they do. So thanks for allowing me to confirm what I said before. Facts over opinion -- that's MY standard, regardless of what ends up happening in the courts.

Anonymous said...

Amazing how CB continues to wage a war based upon pure speculation this demonstrates in part the cultural depth of white supremacy . CB simply cannot acknowledge that CD has destroyed his reasoning on behalf of Zimmerman.

I understand CNu posturing it is the nature of his self hate for himself and anything Black plus part of the ego driven person he is it stings him that CD is smarter.

SO here we are in another racial saga that continues to plague our nation. Negrophobia continues to sweep the nation now with license given to anyone to execute us under the color of law, it is deep into our classrooms and the daily reality of life for Americans of my hue...WTF

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: Just to recap: Here is where I started on this page, after asking why stating evidence on Zimmerman was smearing Martin as you claimed:

"Then you make stuff up. Kindly give EVIDENCE to back your claims that 1) he decided to hunt down and kill Trayvon; 2) He stalked and harassed Trayvon; 3) He went after Trayvon for the crime of being black; 4) Zimmerman was a vigilante killer.

You have stated all of these as FACTS. Fine. Show EVIDENCE, other than racial stereotyping which appears (based on EVIDENCE) to have no basis."

Since that first posting, you have called me condescending names and wrapped this up in charges of racism and whiteness and tons of other B.S.

YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS, while I have been lynched for having the audacity to ask for FACTS, NOT OPINIONS. As you clearly can not back your initial charges with the facts I have repeatedly asked for (THE REASON I AM ON THIS PAGE), what is you excuse? Too busy on theory to provide facts.

My bottom line is: Is what is being charged SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

All of the evidence above shows that your claims are not. Like I said elsewhere, you have refused to even step into the ring.

AGAIN, you are humbly asked to back your charges, or admit that you cannot. That would be the adult thing do to, right?

And since this is "your house", you might consider treating "guests" with a bit of civility and common courtesy. (Unless of course your objective is to drive me away because you cannot honestly deal with my legitimate questions. That seems a likely answer after your consistent evasion here. Again, EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IS WELCOME, but (sadly) not expected.)

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: This has nothing to do with race, but thanks for buying into Chauncey's theories. Read my response to Chauncey above (4/29 10:05AM) for the real point. I asked for FACTS to back his charges. He cannot provide them. Charging racism is apparently a lot easier than providing facts (see the Duke rape case).

Why does somebody who asks for FACTS get attacked? Isn't this America where we ALL have the same rights, and we are all considered innocent until proven guilty? (Oh, perhaps Chauncey really is in Cape Verde, is that it?)

CNu said...

1) I stated that facts mattered in courts, not opinion.

lol,

That statement is entirely erroneous.

My whole and entire point was that court is NOT AT ALL scientific and that opinions and arguments (MORE THAN FACTS) matter as much if not more in court than elsewhere.

The ONLY field of human endeavor where facts, truth, and objectivity take precedent over arguments and opinions is science.

2) I stated that I HAVE TRIED to take this beyond opinion. That's me, I'm talkin' bout. I am NOT the court, and cannot control what they do. So thanks for allowing me to confirm what I said before. Facts over opinion -- that's MY standard, regardless of what ends up happening in the courts.

You have failed most miserably - both - in taking any of this matter beyond opinion - and - in adhering to the standard which you profess but in no way embody.

CB - the profound, intractable, and crippling depth of your solipsism and anosognosia is precisely what caused me to abandon hope for your species years ago...,

CNu said...

I understand CNu posturing it is the nature of his self hate for himself and anything Black plus part of the ego driven person he is it stings him that CD is smarter.

Thrasher you silly jiggaboo, I love myself - but I do indeed despise intellectually-crippled negroe incompetents like you whose only tool is the hammer of race, with the consequence that everything you experience and encounter looks like a nail. You're the even more limited flipside of the coin of these victims of the european dissociation.

Negrophobia continues to sweep the nation now with license given to anyone to execute us under the color of law, it is deep into our classrooms and the daily reality of life for Americans of my hue...WTF

lol, I wish somebody would execute your useless monkey behind..., you single-handedly set black folks back 250 years.

Tom said...

I didn't quite get that "european dissociation" was LLW's term. I do need to get my hands on that book.

I've noticed in the past, a lot of white people have trouble grasping that black people might be afraid of them. And you're not informing them of that possibility either. They just look at you funny and laugh.

ColorBind said...

@Sabina: You truly are amazing, and approach the master (CDV) in powers of misdirection. You even criticize me for giving ONE point instead of FOUR, when the points have been rehashed multiple times here, and personally, I'm getting tired of typing the same stuff over and over, and having to break up responses because it takes so long to answer all of your points. And you think we need to see an entire poem by Rudyard Kipling? Based on what APPEARS to be your rationale, we should totally discount Kipling as a racist, right? He was just some white guy who belonged to the Masons (hardly a bastion of racial equality). You convicted Zimmerman on what you imagine his mental state to do. Fair is fair, right?
And by the way, as to one of your other assumptions, our television service does NOT get Fox News. (But we do like "The Finder" on regular Fox programming).

White Haters Burden (anon) Lost in the day / Trapped in the night / Forever mired / In black and white

Where do we start? How about at YOUR BEGINNING HERE. "The arrest affidavit's evidence did not include a key piece of evidence. Declared it indeterminate even though "we" know what was said". While I began this page asking for (still unprovided) FACTS, you started by claiming to know more than the experts who are trying the case. And you say I'm the one in need of facts?

You've read my words? You seem to have some trouble with comprehension then, because you are MISSTATING what I said: I said judge both by the facts, then I said WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WOULD BE HAD HE NOT SHOT MARTIN. How in the Wide Wide World of MisQuoters does that equate to "you take the position that Trayvon needed to be shot???????"
(This, in the real world of facts and objectivity is called MAKING STUFF UP (lying). I never said what you claim I said. I don't have facts that Trayvon could kill Trayvon (sic). I said "WE DON'T KNOW". Unlike you, I don't make stuff up and call it fact. George had no reason to draw his weapon (and based on the girlfriend's call, didn't). The EVIDENCE indicates that Zimmerman didn't draw his gun until Martin was on top of him attacking him. WE DO NOT KNOW. What will the evidence say? And Zimmerman isn't a cop.

Trayvon was not threatening at the outset. We don't know if Zimmerman was either. (DON'T KNOW. Nice words. Try them on for size.) Trayvon did have the right to choose and run, and I never said otherwise. (You, too, might go back to my very first comment here and see where this all started before I had to start defending myself against charges of racism, white guilt, and imprecise word choice. BTW, you don't even know my race, so you can lay off the white guilt, as well). Trayvon could have run, and apparently had the ability to do so -- likely much better than Zimmerman (just an assumption here, high school footballer racing frumpy 28 year old. I think Trayvon wins that race easily). His girlfriend told him to run. He did not. Why is this? (Again, I'm just going by what I know of the phone calls. Any EVIDENCE you have that is different I would really like to see).

ColorBind said...

"some strange, aggressive man whom you had just thought you had gotten away from, comes barreling back down on you." " some crazy guy who has chased us and now have us cornered" "then having been cornered again" " it simply means that Trayvon felt he had no other choice but to fight, after having tried running." "everything that happened up to that point paints George as the aggressor and instigator and what happened after paints him as a murderer." "you are not being fair to the one person who was drawn into a position to have to defend himself." "This was a person who was targeted and victimized over issues that he had nothing to do with." "Who could only assume that this was a maniac intent on harming him" YOUR WORDS. How much of this is SPECULATION on your part? "Everything that happened"? We DO NOT KNOW everything that happened. "You are not being fair"? I have repeatedly said we DO NOT KNOW and that BOTH of them should be accorded the same rights (in life or death, yes, I know one of them is dead. That doesn't mean he should be treated differently). Also, how does somebody get cornered and cornered again in an open grass space away from buildings? Just curious....

ColorBind said...

@Sabinabee (continued, because you just don't seem to get it)

What would you do? If I were a high school football player, I would do what I was trained to do. Run (or jog) to my nearby home. Or call home on the cell phone in my hand. Either of those would have been easy, no? If I was at a "safe distance", it's doubtful the man would be "back". (see "safe distance") If he actually closed that space, I would ask him what he was doing (according to testimony, precisely what Zimmerman did). If he moved to attack me, I would defend myself. Martin would have had every right to do so. But we DO NOT KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I would not claim to be a mind reader and know that "he was intent on forcing HIS will upon another human being." The phone call and Zimmerman's testimony and evidence don't tell us for certain what happened. I'm still looking for FACTS. You still use SPECULATION. True?

"I have speculated scenarios based on human behavior". Thanks for admitting it. Why is your speculation superior to the facts? Why don't BOTH SIDES GET AN EQUAL SHOT AT BEING IN THE RIGHT? I seem to be the only one on this page saying BOTH men had rights. And you think this is wrong? If the roles were reversed and I was advocating to give Martin the benefit of the doubt, would you be attacking me? Didn't think so. Why not? (Answer to yourself if you like, or tell the truth here if you choose). "usually preceded with some kind of qualifier". Usually doesn't always cut it. Thanks for admitting the point I've been trying to make.

"BTW, you reqest for vidence is narrowed down with every point proven" (sorry, I'm tired of fixing your spelling, just like I'm tired of repeating the same words over and over again).
"as each of your bogus concerns are address, you knocknthem off your demand for proof list" Again, CHECK MY VERY FIRST POST. I ASKED FOR FACTS TO BACK CHAUNCEY'S ASSERTIONS. Just because I don't care to fill the page with repeats of the same words doesn't mean I've changed. I still want FACTS AND EVIDENCE, no matter which side they end up on. Clearly, from your very first post, facts in evidence aren't as important as what you ("we") know.

I assume a waist tackle does not include the head. We DO NOT KNOW. Again, you are speculating. The medical reports should give a clear picture of what happened. Unless you also know more than the medical reports, which I am willing to wait for before making any final determinations. Yes, that's one of the maps I was referring to. And it seems to indicate that Zimmerman's vehicle had to be some distance away. The 911 call has Zimmerman telling the dispatcher that Martin was now coming towards him. That would fit with the layout of the map, if Zimmerman were near his vehicle. We DO NOT KNOW. But pieces of the evidence support Zimmerman's account. At this point, more appear to support ZImmerman than Martin, but that is subject to change. Is your mind?

I did listen to the tape again. (And no, I'm not trained by Fox, don't even get it). The tape doesn't answer the questions here. It sounds like Zimmerman stopped running, his breath eased, and there's the sound of footsteps -- or a key in a car lock, who knows? He states that (Martin) ran, and was asked "which way". So yes, you are right, the first statement of Martin approaching was early on. "We" do not know what happened after that despite your claims of omniscience to the contrary.

"You do NOT know that Zimmerman deemed him guilty." he did. He's dead. NO YOU DO NOT KNOW ZIMMERMAN DEEMED HIM GUILTY. We know that Zimmerman followed him, something went wrong, and Martin is dead. What you claim to know is SPECULATION. Right?
"

ColorBind said...

"He deemed him suspicious, and went to ask who he was." Suspicious enough to shoot, and not his place. You DO NOT KNOW THIS. It's possible that Zimmerman did not shoot until he had to. Please look up POSSIBLE. Then look up SPECULATION. I'm giving BOTH of them possibilities here. You refuse to even consider that Zimmerman MAY HAVE been in the right. I'm not saying he was. I have repeatedly said that if Chauncey's charge is correct, ZImmerman should hang. But it's unfair to convict either of them based on SPECULATION, which much of your arguments turn out to be. Is this correct?

"Would it make a difference to you if they had both been black?"

Ah, the obligatory black on black defense. Surprised you hadn't tried this earlier. Guess what? They weren't. Again (call it being obtuse if you like) you missed the point. You speculate all you like, and attack if someone else tries it. I'm guessing that if both were black, your arguments would be different. (Mine would not be). So tell me honestly that the race of one of these two doesn't color your feelings about all of this. Then you can cry for yourself tomorrow.

nomad said...

Agree with this idiot awreddy.

CNu said...

a lot of white people have trouble grasping that black people might be afraid of them.

MIGHT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Given the 400 year history. Living memory law and history. Direct personal experience...,

Outnumbered 8 to 1, with 1 out of 5 a gun-toting cognitive cripple living in counterfactual imaginary fear of black folks - there's no MIGHT BE AFRAID to it.

Sadly, I have had to add the pants-on-the-ground ignants and ninis to the bestiary of evil/chaotic two-legged monsters that my children must be hypervigilant to detect/deter/avoid/neutralize.

Back in my parents time, when caution and fear were the baseline order of the day, at least black folks didn't have very much to fear from one another...,

nomad said...

"at least black folks didn't have very much to fear from one another...,"

Yeah, right. There were no black criminals in those days. And no psycho-racially pathological traumatized blacks either.

I too long for the good ol days.

chaunceydevega said...

@Nomad. I am going to keep talking to him. Dude has mental diarrhea. I hope his tinfoil hat is on tight.

Coloroffhismeds' best line is this " I would not claim to be a mind reader"

His whole defense of Zimmerman is predicated on being a mind reader and also imputing data to fit his hypothesis in the most convenient and self-serving way possible.

I am going to forward all of his exchanges to a friend who is a psychologist and see if he will give us a diagnosis of Colorbind as I do think he has some behavior straight out of the DSM IV.

sabrinabee said...

CB,
Chauncey has presented fact to you. I have presented fact to you, identified them as facts. Posed a theory based on same facts. I've had enough word salad with you. Until you can clearly outline the case for Zimmerman with reason then I am done with your nonsense.

If your idea of facts is the mid-sentence flip you did here,

"If he actually closed that space, I would ask him what he was doing (according to testimony, precisely what Zimmerman did)." the question should have ben answered fromthe view of Trayvon. You are clearly incapable of doin that without testifying for George but you are being "fair and impartial".

Or this gem,

""You might look at the map of the scene. Trayvon entered from Rinehart and had to get to Retreat View. Zimmerman's truck was quite a ways from there. If Zimmerman got close to Martin, the map says it was because Martin approached him ..."

Then you are clearly trying to cloud out any sense of reason.

You,make yours appeals to evidence and throw in outrageous conclusions, and Zimmerman-based "facts" , then call everyone else wrong for listening with their eyes and ears. Your intent is clearly to obfuscate and you have no real concern as to whether facts are presented or not. So, it is back to ignoring your posts for me. Those types of little gemss are littererd throuhgout you posts, it has truly become an artform for your type. You hope that others are not paying attention or are not willing to verify, or are just plain loony enough to buy your tripe. Fox has been very successful with it's campaign. It not only has you guys thinking like them, they also has you posing arguments in the exact same manner as was apllied to you. I wish I were a sociology teacher/student during these times, because it is truly quite astonishing, the effectiveness, the entrenchment.

BTW, Rudyard Kipling's poem was inserted by me as a nice way to say, cry me a river over your percieved "injustice". Your wihine simply reminded me of the poem. Though ,I should have know better than to present you with more fodder for your, cloud the situation games.

ColorBind said...

@CNu: You're correct that science is more precise, but try to litigate a case in court with opinions rather than facts, and see what you get.

And please be so kind as to tell me precisely how I have miserably failed at upholding my professed standard.

@SabrinaBs: You ignored the factual charges of your own misstatements, and edited my comments to again misstate them. Your mention of Fox proves you didn't even read my words. Please go away, thanks for saving the effort it takes to unwind your evasive reasoning. As I said, I originally asked Chauncey for backing of four of his "factual" charges. Still NOTHING. I've said I don't know what happened. Chauncey (and to some extent you) happen to have no tolerance for any scenario that doesn't match your. Sad.

@Chauncey: Again, you MISSTATE my words. I am trying to be fair to BOTH. I said nobody KNOWS exactly what happens. You are the one who has REFUSED TO ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION THAT STARTED THIS. YOUR COMMENTS (4) were based on YOUR MIND READING. I ASKED FOR THE FACTS. We got NOTHING. You got nothing. Otherwise, give it up.

Please pass this along to your PhD.
See what he thinks of someone who keeps asking for facts, and believes that BOTH PARTIES have a right to be tried fairly. Otherwise, I'm part of the solution, and you are part of the problem (that would be convicting Zimmerman without a trial).

I'm still looking for those answers, Mr. Knowitall.

Anon 1 said...

ColorBind said: ”I did NOT unapologetically take Zimmerman's account as fact. I have REPEATEDLY stated that we DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS. All we have so far is the evidence to date, which is not enough to convict either party. “

Colorbind these are your words: “If you are really "afraid" and you are 70 feet from home, why not just jog home, instead of turning around and attacking the person you are supposedly afraid of? “

Is this not an example of you unapologetically taking Zimmerman's account as a fact?

ColorBind said...

@Anon1. No it's not. I'm saying (as I have repeatedly stated here) that each version should have the same credibility until proven wrong. "We do not know the facts" means I do not take either account as fact. What part of "we do not know the facts" was unclear to you?

I started here to challenge four "facts" from Chauncey that clearly are NOT facts (and on which I am STILL awaiting an answer from Chauncey). I did not come her to be a one man defense for either side. But as I keep taking heat for nearly every effort I make at fairness, I have ended up being the sole defender of Zimmerman. Why do you think nobody on this site is willing to give Zimmerman ANY benefit of the doubt, yet willing to give Martin EVERY benefit of the doubt?

Don't all citizens of every color have the same rights in this country? Aren't we ALL innocent until proven guilty? Someone just coming to this site might rename it the "Execute Zimmerman today because there is no way on earth he could possibly be anything other than 100% guilty" web site. Can you read the posts above and disagree?

chaunceydevega said...

@Colortwistedintogutslikeintestineswithablockage

"@Anon1. No it's not. I'm saying (as I have repeatedly stated here) that each version should have the same credibility until proven wrong."

Zimmerman has far less credibility given that he has been caught lying repeatedly, ignored the police, was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have, is by definition a vigilante, was in a clearly upset emotional state on the phone with the police, used disparaging language to describe an innocent person, was incorrect in his assumption that said person killed by Zimmerman person was involved in committing a crime, has demonstrated criminal and violent behavior in the past, etc. etc. etc.

Trayvon Martin was killed for walking around a neighborhood by someone who thought people who look like him should not be on their turf. Martin was exercising his constitutional rights to walk down the street; his murderer instigated the whole situation.

Thus, Zimmerman has zero credibility at this point.

"Don't all citizens of every color have the same rights in this country?"

Poor white folks and those identified with them--the scales of justice are so tipped against them. How can a white man, or a white identified hispanic, get a break in America when matters are so very unfair?

I am trying to watch Cartoons but you are more entertaining Colormebad. Try some more.

Question: Do you have borderline personality disorder?

Do you feel that others do not listen to you?

Do you fixate on people and ideas when you feel that you have not been "heard?"

Does this interfere with your forming long term and meaningful relationships with others?

Are you often anxious and nervous about things outside of your control?

Do you have a hard time accepting no for an answer? Do you continue to try to negotiate and process answers or people's responses to you when they are not to your liking?

My colleague wanted me to do a pre-intake screening with you in order to provide context for your emails.

Tom said...

CNu

Yeah empathy is not exactly our strong suit. My current crackpot theory is that the most recent ice age was like a multi-thousand-year Donner Party scenario, and empathy (at least with anybody who might potentially be edible) may have kinda gotten de-emphasized.

Granted that theory is cartoonish and wrong; still there seems to be maybe a deficit.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: I have a hard time taking condescending BS from somebody who would rather paint fancy distractive word pictures than answer a simple question -- otherwise this would have been done after my first and only posting. You are still IMAGINING what went on -- counter to the facts thus far in evidence. And in this country, per the laws and the Constitution, we all have the same rights.

Fill up the page with your "educated" talk and create all the theories and psychobabble you want.
It still paints you as someone unable or unwilling to do what normal people do immediately -- address the issue before you.

Do you have trouble going to the bathroom, because you go twenty miles out of your way to make sure the water smells correct? You seem to have a real aversion to getting to the point. (See that little joke there?)

Bottom line FACT: I asked you to back up your fantasy "facts" at the start of this exchange. You have diverted, distracted, and disrupted.

But you have yet to answer the original question.

Got a problem with simple Q & A?

(Or maybe you don't have facts to back your assertions and figure if you B.S. long enough, your failure to perform will be overlooked and forgotten. Sorry, I for one keep track. Now be a good little host, go up top, and check my original questions. See if you can finally get up an answer that is a) not condescending and b) factual.

I know you can do it. I really do.

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorsillyupsetpersistentmanwhoneedsahug.

Given that you are about 2 hours or so away from Sanford, Florida why don't you drive down there, do some interviews, and reconstruct the crime scene. You can write up a report and I will post it here.

How old are you? Are you a creationist? Do you believe in global warming? Is Obama an American citizen eligible for the presidency? Is America a meritocracy? Do whites and people of color have the same chance at success? Was America founded as a Christian nation? Why was the Civil War fought? Is the media liberal? Do tax cuts pay for themselves? Is there class warfare against rich people in this country? Is Obama a closet muslim who hates white people?

Attitudes and beliefs about one issue position tend to be related to a universe and constellation of other attitudes. I am curious to see how we can locate your political beliefs--not necessarily an ideology per se as Converse was still correct--regarding Zimmerman to other matters.

All of these statements are facts silly goose. Are you changing mom's bedsheets yet? Santa Clause just left and now you need to clean up afterwards.

"Zimmerman has far less credibility given that he has been caught lying repeatedly, ignored the police, was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have, is by definition a vigilante, was in a clearly upset emotional state on the phone with the police, used disparaging language to describe an innocent person, was incorrect in his assumption that said person killed by Zimmerman person was involved in committing a crime, has demonstrated criminal and violent behavior in the past, etc. etc. etc.

Trayvon Martin was killed for walking around a neighborhood by someone who thought people who look like him should not be on their turf. Martin was exercising his constitutional right to walk down the street; his murderer instigated the whole situation."

Anonymous said...

This is CNu's quote to my mentor Mr. Thrasher who has allowed me to use his pc and monitor sites for our group

"lol, I wish somebody would execute your useless monkey behind..., you single-handedly set black folks back 250 years."

This is over the top CNu is issuing a deady threat to my mentor Mr. Thrasher!!!!!
CNu then resorts to one of the oldest racist guilt trips ever by blaming Mr. Thrasher.... WTF

CNu's is out of order here and we should object as a community never to accept this decorum in WARN

I am going to our group meeting tonite and inform Mr. Thrasher of CNu's comments!!

CNu said...

Yeah empathy is not exactly our strong suit. My current crackpot theory is that the most recent ice age was like a multi-thousand-year Donner Party scenario

Yumpin Yehoshephat and shades of Big Don!!!!

Fr. Romanides puts it a lot more recent than that with the imposition of Frankish feudalism and the Bros. Grimm kinda sorta back him up on that....,

CNu said...

This is CNu's quote to my mentor Mr. Thrasher who has allowed me to use his pc and monitor sites for our group....I am going to our group meeting tonite and inform Mr. Thrasher of CNu's comments!!

rotflmbao

priceless.jiggaboo.comedy.gold...,

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey. OK. You get a clear cut "F" on both a and b above (facts and condescension). But I will play along just a bit. 1) Zimmerman lied.
2) Trayvon was killed for walking around.

ONCE AGAIN: 1) GIVE ME FACTS TO BACK THESE CLAIMS. 2) SKIP THE CONDESCENSION. It's below both of us.

Anonymous said...

CB
Please enough of your idle speculation your excuses have been destroyed by CD.

Tom said...

lol, I don't take it seriously. I recall Submariner pointing out years ago how easy it is to make "just so" stories about evolution, on both sides of any point anyone wants to make. And I certainly hope it's not true. I don't know that it's 100% impossible though.

Anon 1 said...

CNulan said: “Sadly, I have had to add the pants-on-the-ground ignants and ninis to the bestiary of evil/chaotic two-legged monsters that my children must be hypervigilant to detect/deter/avoid/neutralize.”

ROTFLMAO! Whew…too funny :^)
Hate to admit it, but I'm beginning to feel the same way about these people!

nomad said...

I'm confused w these anonymi. They're just too indistinguishable.

ColorBind said...

@Anon: Please point out "MY" excuses. I started out asking CDV for the basis of his fantasies he called facts. He belittles me but runs away from the question. How does that destroy my position? I'm not the one running from a simple question. Thanks.

Tom said...

Yeah, Anonymi, it would be a gesture of compassion for the rest of us if you could just pick some names already. If you're not feeling creative, they have those baby-name lists online.

Anonymous said...

The host posts under an alias as well as most of the posters in here..

So when in Rome..

I will let my content define me..

Tom said...

Nobody is asking you to use your social security number. Just call yourself Morpheus or something, pretty please?

foreverdrone said...

I'm repeatedly impressed by the patience of those responding to inacolorbind. With chaunceydevega standing out for his persistence. Offering a primer in White Privilege 101, to someone who refuses to listen.

Admittedly, at some point I began skimming. Not as much patience.

I don't have a vested stake in this...And I'm sorry that Zimmerman is almost as good as dead...

Holy sh!t. He's not merely "sorry" about this perception; he's bursting with tachycardia over it.

(Then--in discussions on a blog!--he complains of being "lynched." Need I say more?)

I keep seeing headlines such as, "Can Zimmerman get a fair trial?" What misplaced concern and bass-ackward priorities!

Given Sanford PD having declined to gather evidence of any sort--the strength of gun culture in the region--and the obvious biases of a heavy majority of white Americans: is anything other than acquittal possible?

Repeated ad nauseaum, all this touching concern: for Zimmerman to be treated fairly. Combined with scenarios of stunning complexity (and absence of facts) explaining why Trayvon Martin deserved what he got.

Oh and these "objective" journalists referring to Zimmerman as a "neighborhood watch volunteer." The word "volunteer" appearing twenty times as often as "vigilante."

Growing weary of this Spectacle. Observing how a dumb@ss with Dirty Harry fantasies is getting away with murder.

Been feeling, lately, particularly keen discomfort and disgust. Because I'm a white American. Uncertain I could ever disagree often enough--or loudly enough--without folks reasonably assuming I'm in agreement with the ignorant mob.

And right now? I feel as if I'm reading from the script of the white-liberal stereotype.

If these experiences--in some small fraction--compel recognition of the inescapability of racist assumptions? Good reasons for being uncomfortable.