Thursday, April 12, 2012

What Would W.E.B. Du Bois Say? Black Brigands Waylay White Man in Saint Patrick's Day Attack




It would appear that our long George Zimmerman's national nightmare is about to be over continue. While in lockup, I know that there are many brothers who are eager to make Zimmerman's acquaintance and show him some "love."

The Trayvon Martin murder has encouraged many good white conservatives to come out of the woodwork and confess their love of black people. The former are now obsessed with "black on black" crime as they plead and prey for our salvation. They ask, "where are Al Sharpton and other such 'trouble-making' 'race hustlers' when white folks are attacked by black goons?" "What of fairness!" "Who is protecting us?"

In the theater of the racially absurd that was inaugurated by the election of the country's first black president, white people are now victims; as such, white conservative reactionaries cry and plead for black and brown allies who will stand in the breach with them against White Victimhood.

Of course, these White concerns about black crime, criminality, and intragroup violence are based on a specious and dishonest type of empathy and care. These voices are silent except when white racism is obvious as a motivation in the shooting down, murder--and lackadaisical investigation of such crime by the police--of black and brown people by Whites (and those who overly identify with them).

Moreover, "the black people need to look in the mirror before they talk about anti-black violence crowd" are also deeply invested in both White deflection and White denial of White racism as a social reality. Here, if they can find one example of bad behavior by blacks against long-suffering white folks, all claims of structural inequality and white privilege are rendered null and void. This is a very neat heuristic. It is also one that is shallow and anti-intellectual.

A few folks have asked me what I think about the Saint Patrick's day mob attack by a group of black teens and young adults on a white tourist in Baltimore, Maryland. I generally do not engage such questions because to do so risks legitimizing a narrative where appeals to black criminality are used as a means to avoid critically engaging structural White Supremacy. Outliers become immunizers; hate crimes become not a habit of whites against people of color, but rather a trend of white suffering and oppression. I try not to legitimate such foolishness with a response.

However, and especially given how there are many new readers to We Are Respectable Negroes, I will offer up an answer that is old hat for those who have been here from the beginning. One can be a critic of white supremacy and still be deeply invested in the politics of black respectability, dignity, and success. The street brigand troglodytes who attacked this innocent man deserve to be put under the jail.

By implication, how any fair or keen observer can seriously suggest that black folks tolerate the criminal classes, remains a mystery to me.

Apparently, those people who traffic in the fiction that the vast majority of African Americans love black hooligans, have not spend any time actually talking to us. And most certainly, these same dim types have not conversed across the color line, or sat in on our churches, mosques, barbershops, hair salons, dens, or living rooms, where during private moments the punishments for street urchin mouth breathers that we discuss would (likely) make Hammurabi shutter and look away.

More than a century ago, W.E.B. Du Bois, one of America's greatest intellectuals, made the following observations about black crime. He was a historian, sociologist, political scientist, poet, science fiction writer, cultural critic, and activist. And lest we forget, elder god Du Bois was also a criminologist.

The street beast highwaymen make few distinctions about the color of their victims. They are not to be protected--as black folks often and reasonably did for some among the criminal classes during the reign of the lynching tree. Respectable negroes, the vast majority of black people, want black ign'ts imprisoned, just as we want killers like George Zimmerman to be treated fairly by the law when they shoot people dead in the street. Justice ought to be blind.

As the miner's canary, Black and Brown Americans only want the rules applied and enforced fairly across lines of race and class. We also want the causes of criminal behavior engaged and dealt with just as readily as the crimes themselves.

The Souls of Black Folks captures this perfectly:
So great an economic and social revolution as swept the South in '63 meant a weeding out among the Negroes of the incompetents and vicious, the beginning of a differentiation of social grades.
Now a rising group of people are not lifted bodily from the ground like an inert solid mass, but rather stretch upward like a living plant with its roots still clinging in the mould. The appearance, therefore, of the Negro criminal was a phenomenon to be awaited; and while it causes anxiety, it should not occasion surprise...
Thus grew up a double system of justice, which erred on the white side by undue leniency and the practical immunity of red-handed criminals, and erred on the black side by undue severity, injustice, and lack of discrimination.
For, as I have said, the police system of the South was originally designed to keep track of all Negroes, not simply of criminals; and when the Negroes were freed and the whole South was convinced of the impossibility of free Negro labor, the first and almost universal device was to use the courts as a means of reenslaving the blacks.
It was not then a question of crime, but rather one of color, that settled a man's conviction on almost any charge. Thus Negroes came to look upon courts as instruments of in- justice and oppression, and upon those convicted in them as martyrs and victims.
When, now, the real Negro criminal appeared, and instead of petty stealing and vagrancy we began to have highway robbery, burglary, murder, and rape, there was a curious effect on both sides the color-line: the Negroes refused to believe the evidence of white witnesses or the fairness of white juries, so that the greatest deterrent to crime, the public opinion of one's own social caste, was lost, and the criminal was looked upon as crucified rather than hanged.
On the other hand, the whites, used to being careless as to the guilt or innocence of accused Negroes, were swept in moments of passion beyond law, reason, and decency. Such a situation is bound to increase crime, and has increased it. To natural viciousness and vagrancy are being daily added motives of revolt and revenge which stir up all the latent savagery of both races and make peaceful attention to economic development often impossible
But the chief problem in any community cursed with crime is not the punishment of the criminals, but the preventing of the young from being trained to crime.

58 comments:

fred c said...

". . . have not spent any time actually talking to us." Ain't that the truth. It's a problem.

And I hate to tell those White folk out there, the ones that have Black "friends" at work, you're not getting a clear picture. Those guys are financially invested in shining you on. So if you say some stupid shit, and it goes over with a smile, don't walk away thinking that you were right, or that the Black co-worker agreed with you.

I pretty sure that most White Americans would say that they don't have much opportunity to really talk to actual Black Americans, but most of that failure is lack of trying.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey:

You wrote: "I generally do not engage [in] legitimizing appeals to black criminality ... I try not to legitimate such foolishness..."

How does this square with: "While in lockup, I know that there are many brothers who are eager to make Zimmerman's acquaintance and to show him some "love"?

Aren't you just "tweeting" Zimmerman's location to a captive audience with a lethal dog whistle?

freebones said...

that one kid:

"you can't just be wondering around the streets..."

white-on-white victim blaming? now i've seen everything.

chaunceydevega said...

@Fred C. Being the "black friend" has its perks. You get to go on TV, get invited to parties, and can used as a get out of jail free card for any suggestions of racist intent. There is a stipend too!

@Colorbum. Poor Zimmerman. He is such a victim. His life is over. Boo hoo. You should go to his website and donate to the legal defense fund.

ColorBind said...

@Chucklenuts (if you want to continue that game):

Zimmerman's life is essentially over, and Trayvon's mother says she believes it was an accident. You, by calling out for "brotherly love" are promoting violence against him, while claiming to be above such things.

Please answer the question: are your words hypocritical?

Boo hoo? How would you feel if you were in Zimmerman's shoes and you were, indeed, based on facts, proven not guilty?

Weird Beard said...

We are all George Zimmerman, we will be marching armed to the t looking for suspicious blacks in hoodies to stalk and harass later tonight after the candle light vigil.

chaunceydevega said...

@Coloraroused. Zimmerman made this mess. Now he has to own it. How you cannot see that fact is baffling.
I thought you guys believed in "personal responsibility?"

You are either just trying to annoy and frustrate or Zimmerman is a projection of your ideology and values. Do you imagine him as some aggrieved innocent man who did what other "reasonable" and "innocent" White men would do but only got waylayed by the angry blacks and troublemakers like Sharpton et al.?

For many of Zimmerman's defenders their reaction is an instinctive one to any claim or charge of racism. They cannot help but deny it; even when the facts are plain.

I am not calling for violence. I am simply observing that there are many brothers in the lockup who will be eager to make his acquaintance. That is a fact. Bank on it.

ColorBind said...

@PurveyorOfRacistFiction:

Your denial of a call for violence indicates your approval of that which much of your other writing here justifies.

Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. That does not equal "made this mess". You're the only one talking about angry blacks ("and you know what happens when we get angry")

Z shot Martin. Whether his action was reasonable is up to a jury based on evidence, not you based on your obvious biases.

"You guys"? Some would call that comment racist. Is it? Personally, I'm all for personal responsibility -- and that means being accountable for what REALLY happened, not what some racially tinged blogger believes MIGHT have happened.

Let's play by Chauncey Rules: You are a narrow minded, race-baiting advocate of black vigilante "justice" who gives absolutely no value to the facts. If you accept this, you are right. If you deny this, you are lying. Make sense? Why not? Do you live by some kind of double standard?

The FACTS will come out in the trial. When the TRUTH is known, will you own that?

You project your values that race colors everything. My values are evidence trumps ideology. I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, although the evidence to date says he is NOT guilty of those things for which you have already convicted him.

Which of our positions is the more reasonable? (Or is my supposed whiteness -- in your mind, as you don't even know my race -- going to also shade this answer?)

Why do you insist I'm so wrong for asking that we all give a brother an even break and let the legal system decide?

Anonymous said...

Color Bind said: "I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, although the evidence to date says he is NOT guilty of those things for which you have already convicted him."

Please elaborate, Zimmerman is not guilty of exactly what?

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: Many people are charging him with the racially motivated hunting down and killing of an innocent boy, which looks not to have credibility.

I question if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent of an actual crime. Since the evidence indicates there was a struggle -- which means both were involved -- the question is whether or not Zimmerman had just cause to draw and fire his weapon.

Seems like a fair question to ask of ANYBODY of ANY COLOR who shoots another and claims self-defense.

Anonymous said...

Color Bind

Based on hard evidence, Zimmerman could very well be guilty of "hunting down and killing an innocent boy". In fact, that is very credible.

Based on one eyewitness account who saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and police statement of Zimmerman injury that would be to Zimmerman's favor. Based on the police dispatch, forensic voice analyst, Trayvon being unarmed those would all be in Travyon's favor. Zimmerman is going to say whatever to defend himself (thus his version of events can be dismissed) and Trayvon is dead.

Right now it's open ended. So for you to claim "the evidence to date says he is NOT guilty of those things for which you have already convicted him" is blantly false.

It seems the more you rant, the more clear it is that you aren't weighing both sides equally.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous Please give a basis for your charge of bias. I've written that I'm open to evidence, no matter who it supports.

Zimmerman's accounts CAN be dismissed. Likewise, they can also be proven to be true, and at this point, that's where the evidence at hand seems to point. (Unless you think that one person in a tragedy can never tell the truth). If he was going to lie, why didn't he run away after the shooting?

It's true that Zimmerman has a vested stake in promoting his evidence, but I fail to see your "hard evidence supporting him hunting down and killing an innocent boy." Trayvon was unarmed, that's undisputed, as well as the fact that Zimmerman had a legally concealed weapon. You concede Martin was likely on top of Zimmerman, which implicates Martin.

Evidence to date DOES indicate Zimmerman is NOT guilty of "those things for which you have already convicted him" -- ergo, hunting down and killing an innocent boy because of racism. If you have ANY EVIDENCE at all proving this, PLEASE present it. If you can't, then how is my statement false?

Martin was shot at point blank range by a man police reports say was wounded who had called the police to describe the person who turned out to be Martin, then patiently waited for the police to show up, and turned himself in after the charges were filed. If a racist wanted to kill a black, they certainly wouldn't let that person get close enough to pin him to the ground and pound on him. Would you agree this is logical?

If you can show actual bias in ANY of my comments, please point it out.
Otherwise, let's try what I have advocated all along and stop making accusations of racism, and wait for the actual evidence at trial.

That seems to be good enough for the woman who lost her son. Shouldn't it be good enough for the rest of us?

Examine everything we know about Z.
Does this sound like a racist who set out to kill a young black boy?

I'm willing to weigh ANY EVIDENCE ON EITHER SIDE. I still wonder what the autopsy shows. (Sorry, that means I'm open to evidence supporting Martin).

And you think I'm unfair?

Anonymous said...

Colorbind asked: "If he was going to lie, why didn't he run away after the shooting?"

To make up a story about self-defense perhaps....

Colorbind stated: "It's true that Zimmerman has a vested stake in promoting his evidence, but I fail to see your "hard evidence supporting him hunting down and killing an innocent boy." Trayvon was unarmed, that's undisputed, as well as the fact that Zimmerman had a legally concealed weapon...

If you have ANY EVIDENCE at all proving this, PLEASE present it. If you can't, then how is my statement false?"


Whether or not want to include it, Trayvon being unarmed and Zimmerman being armed is HARD evidence, in addition to the 911 dispatcher call and the forensic voice analysts. All this will be used as HARD evidence against Zimmerman.


Colorbind stated: "You concede Martin was likely on top of Zimmerman, which implicates Martin."

I didn't concede anything. I stated that according to one witness this may have occured which favors Zimmerman's testimony.


Colorbind asked: "If a racist wanted to kill a black, they certainly wouldn't let that person get close enough to pin him to the ground and pound on him. Would you agree this is logical?"

No.

Colorbind asked: Examine everything we know about Z.
Does this sound like a racist who set out to kill a young black boy?"

Based on the hard evidence favoring Trayvon- YES.


I'll repeat as I did before- Right now it's OPEN ENDED. So for you to claim "the evidence to date says he is NOT guilty of those things for which you have already convicted him" is blantly false.

Colorbind asked- "And you think I'm unfair?"

Yes because the hard evidence right now favors either two individuals but you are ONLY weighing the evidence favoring Zimmerman. You believe Zimmerman is innocent with absolutely no evidence at this moment pointing to his guilt.

To to make sure to understood me, unarmed dead teen, armed Zimmerman, 911 dispatch calls are all hard evidence favoring Trayvon that WILL be used this trail.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: You are apparently not reading what I have repeatedly wrote: I am asking for evidence.

Your contention that there is EVIDENCE showing that Zimmerman hunted down and killed Martin because of racism is more than :blatantly false": you keep repeating it in the face of requests for backing, and you keep repeating the same charge.

If you've done any real research on Zimmerman and you're convinced that this is hard evidence that he intentionally set out to murder a young boy out of racist impulses, you're seeing something I haven't. PLEASE PROVIDE IT -- and don't repeat the same stuff all over again. Nothing in the 911 tape shows Martin to be a racist -- in fact it indicates he didn't even know the race of Martin at first. (KINDA KILLS THE "SET OUT TO MURDER A BLACK KID", DOESN'T IT?)

Yes it's open ended. And I'm being open-minded, open to evidence. You, however, are convinced that Zimmerman is proven to be a cold-blooded racist killer, yet you provide nothing to back it up.

I've got to question your logic in believing a killer would wait until he was attacked to shoot his intended victim.

And since we both know who was armed and we've both (apparently) listened to the 911 call, kindly provide your information from the
"forensic voice analysts". If you're going to contend that Zimmerman said "f-ing coon", don't bother. The CNN audio experts have already change their conclusion to "f-ing COLD", which also makes sense based on the weather then.

If you can provide hard data my mind is open. I'm open to Zimmerman being PROVEN guilty or innocent. We seem to have "hard evidence" here that you are not open to either ending.

And you call me unfair?

Anonymous said...

The forensic evidence I am referring to to is the fact that the screams did not belong to Zimmerman. But yes include, the likelihood that he probably muttered "coons" on the phone.

I am not convinced about anything- YOU are. I presented evidence on both sides. Based on the evidence I can see how people may come to conclude that Zimmerman racially motivated hunted down
(meaning racilly profiled) and killed an innocent boy. On the other hand, you see NO evidence supporting this claim, which speaks more about you and your motives.

Anonymous said...

Oops I meant racially profiled
.

sabrinabee said...

Colorblind. I'm still trying to figure out, despite your argument for Zimmerman, you make the leap from Zimmerman having no reason nir authority to approach Trayvon at all, to defending his actions afterwards. Do you even realize that had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's advice to allow police to handle it, this likely would not have happened at all? But, since you did, you now want to make it a question of whether the shooting (an event that would not have happened if not for Zimmerman being the aggressor) is justified. Well, consider this if someone is chasing you and finally catches up to you, what would you do? Stand there and allow yourself to be questioned? Would you strike out to get away from someone who has just run you down? Do you really think that Zimmerman would have chased that guy down if he didn't have a laoded gun and knew he could use it at anytime? As far as Trayvon's mother comments she immediately realeased a clarification of her use of accident and that it was not a defense of Zimmerman's actions, which she believes was no accident. But of course that bit of information escaped you. Your arguments really make no logical sense. F**king COLD randomly inserted in the context of the conversation?!! Really?! And why wouldn't he not pull his gun first if his steel courage told him he could probably take the kid physically. Further why would someone who knew that their father, someone who could help them, someone that they were running to get to, was located just at the end of that path, suddenly turn out of earshot and eyesight of that person and follow his pursuer to his car and attack him?

sabrinabee said...

W. E. B Dubois could be writing about today. Seems the more things change, the mire they stay the same.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: I'm not convinced of the verdict. I'm convinced that a lot of people have an agenda to paint somebody as a racist. There are a lot of people who think it's racist to criticize a sitting president's policies, and we have an AG who claims racism when people want to know why DOJ policies got a border agent killed.

You claim it is FACT that Zimmerman is not heard screaming on the call. Yet we have an eyewitness and a friend who both claim you are wrong.
How do you back your "fact"?

It's interesting how you now soften to you "see how people may come to conclude"..where before you were so certain there was hard evidence showing that he actually did hunt down a kill a boy for racist reasons. What changed?

Humor me for 4:18. Listen for yourself and see what you hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJLA9vr97qw

Then tell me there is "hard evidence" that Zimmerman used a racial slur.

Thank you

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorofwhiteoppresionandpain.

You really are fascinating. Your responses are on object lesson in white conservative colorblindness and all of the scripts it dictates regarding this case.

First, how do we go from figuring out Zimmerman's intent and the context for his committing murder, to discussing Obama and Holder? You clearly are color aroused and this is about good white people being accused of racism, thus the knee jerk reaction to defend that troll Zimmerman blow and go wannabe cop and linking it to a bigger narrative about white victimhood and victimization through "reverse racism. Neat stuff!

Also, you show a selective processing of information. The CNN analysts who tell you what you want to hear regarding "cold" vs. "coons" are experts whose data is irrefutable. But the other experts who said that the screaming for help on the tape is not Zimmerman (a lie he was caught in) and by logical implication had to be Martin goes without reference.

Mighty curious.

Free your mind brother. What is this really about? Are you a defender of oppressed white people? Oh how they have suffered recently. Let us lay hands on you and draw out your poison and pain.

I know it is hard out there for white folks in the year 2012. I am here for you.

@Sabrina. You don't get it. Black people have no rights that whites or non-blacks are bound to respect. If Trayon put his hands up, was deferent, and produced a slave pass none of this would have happened. Don't you realize that?

ColorBind said...

@Sabrinabee: I have no problem being called on an irrational leap, being misquoted is something else.

Here is what the sign says in Z's neighborhood:

"We report all suspicious persons and activities to the Sanford Police Department." That means EVERYONE in the community is asked to report. This is what Zimmerman did -- at least at first.

I agree that had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, Martin would be alive. But after being told he didn't need to follow, Z said "OK".
He may have returned to his vehicle at that point, he may have looked farther so he could give the police a better location. We don't know.

Trayvon's girlfriend on the phone gave no indication that he was "chased down and confronted", merely that he said he was being followed. Zimmerman could be lying. Martin could be lying.

Thanks for the tip on the retraction. You may or may not accept this, but I had never heard that, so I checked it out. I found an NBC link, perhaps you have a better one?

The NBC site I found plays the tape of her saying "I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back." Then....

Did her attorney coach her to change that? Maybe not. Maybe. But a note was emailed to MSNBC claiming her taped words were "mischaracterized". I, for one, don't know how a direct taped statement can be mischaracterized.

She then claimed that when she said accident, she was referring to the fact that the two crossed paths, and that her son was followed and murdered.

Pardon my legally skeptical mind, but how does "followed and murdered" jibe with "accident"? She also said "I would be satisfied if Zimmerman were found not guilty." Would a mother convinced it was a cold blooded racial killing EVER say something like that about her son's killer?

I could be wrong, but all these inconsistencies look like she was coached by Mr. Crump. And if she follows these leads and ever takes the stand, she'll get reduced to mush by a defense attorney (IMHO)

ColorBind said...

@Sabrinabee (continued)

You say my arguments "make no logical sense". Kindly explain how. Or quite simply, back your accusation. I'm saying we don't know, and until the verdict, we can look at available evidence.

Would a non-racist out in the abnormally cold (per CNN) weather say "F-ing cold as he shivered in the rain? Could that, perhaps, maybe, just possibly make logical sense? (The link to the CNN analysis that he said "Cold" is two messages down from your message to me).

I think you got twisted in your own words: If Zimmerman thought he COULD take "the kid", there would be no reason to draw his weapon. And there (so far, at least) is no evidence that he ever did before Martin was on top of him. (You think he might have mentioned something to his girlfriend who was ON THE PHONE with him about a gun?
The last she heard was the headset hitting the ground when somebody attacked somebody -- and not with a gun.

Neither of us knows why Martin didn't go straight home. It makes no sense to me. Zimmerman told 911 that Martin was approaching him. Martin's own twitter messages indicate he might be interested in mixing it up. Who knows?

Zimmerman was supposed to report unknown people in his neighborhood. If he got over vigilant, we don't know. Who hit who first? We don't know. We do know there was a fight, and it looks like Martin was on top.

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?

Alan Dershowitz, one of the nation's top attorneys, suggests that Zimmerman might be acquitted of manslaughter. Since the charge is second degree murder, the odds are that much more in Z's favor.

(Until Mr. Crump sends MSNBC a memo retracting it) Trayvon's mother also said she would be OK with Zimmerman being found NOT guilty.

Did I say anything that wasn't fair?

Did I leap to any false conclusions?

If so, please tell me, because I pride myself on fair play, even when it means I don't win.

ColorBind said...

@ Chaunceyouignorantslut (if I may paraphrase an old SNL greeting):) :

Director of misdirection rhetoric: Obama and Holder were examples of race being used as a diversion. OK?

I am unaware of any expert claiming it wasn't Zimmerman yelling for help -- only an eyewitness. Kindly help me out with your source so I can be enlightened (that's what I'm here for).

You don't know my race, you don't know my politics, I doubt you even know my gender. My, isn't it easy to assume...

I've written this elsewhere, but let me spell it out for you, lest your mind be smitten with more wanderlust:

If the roles were reversed, and if Martin had shot Zimmerman, all other things being equal, I would be making these same arguments for Martin. (I suppose I'd have to be on a site other than this one).

You can imagine all your "whiteness" and poison and pain. The sad truth is that it is you who are the knee jerker, not me. It is your mind that needs emancipation.

I've spent decades defending the oppressed, regardless of race.

You can elucidate and wax eloquent all you want to about your first principles and latent racist tendencies. But you cannot change who I am and always will be. In this case, it just happened to be the black shot by the Hispanic.

My principles don't change. Do yours?

chaunceydevega said...

@Colordouchebaggery ;)

Here is the story on the tape. Not hard to find.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46920281#46920281

Also, I don't know what color or race you are. Regardless, your comments to date suggest someone overly identified with Whiteness. There are many black and brown people in that camp--Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Herman Cain, Michelle Malkin, etc. etc. etc.

I judge you on what you offer. You are deep in the white racial frame. We can help you. But first, you need to admit that you have a problem.

Weird Beard said...

I thought the prosecution has decided to allow the assumption that the tapes say "punk" instead of cold/coon what have you. They seem to have stopped pursuing that a racial slur was used. That being said, I think getting caught up in publically trying this case and armchair lawyering may distract from the peak behind the curtain to the state of race in this country currently. Though some choose to steer this conversation compulsively to a constant whiny temper tantrum demanding of proof and facts in a legal sense about the case that continues myopically and ad nauseum. The public has all been shown the same 'facts' on this case. Some have decided based on this their view of what went down. Demanding extra irrefutable magical evidence on this case from a random hunk of bloggers that aren't investigators or privy to any more knowledge than anyone else is a strawman and ridiculous.

ColorBindAndObjective said...

@chauncey: Come on, Chaunc. Playing with names is one thing. "Douchebag" is pretty classless even for you. Are you baiting me to see if I'll sink that low? Sorry. I have standards.

Your omniscient knowingness believes I am deep in some white racial frame. I think you need to admit that you have a problem: You refuse to accept somebody else's right to be themself. I note you had no comment on my offering to take Trayvon's side if the roles were reversed? Why? Would that damage your narrative?

I did watch your link, and two experts found by MSNBC did have equipment that "allowed them to say" the voice wasn't Zimmerman.
They could be right. And OJ's DNA evidence was a lot tighter than that, and he was cleared.

There are a few caveats: 1) This is MSNBC. They have a vested interest in convicting Zimmerman, after dishonestly editing the 911 tape. 2) The commentator is STILL lying about the case, saying "to charge the white man who killed a black teenager". Kinda kills the old objectivity again, would you agree? 3) There are still an eyewitness and someone who knows Zimmerman claiming it was his voice.
4) Do we know if these experts had a sample of Zimmerman screaming to compare against? 5) Is it odd that they claimed it was not Zimmerman, but they didn't claim it was Trayvon? 6) If it was Trayvon, is there a possibility that he was screaming because Zimmerman was fighting back before having to resort to pulling his gun?

MSNBC seems to think that the Prosecutor (who oddly asked people to pray for the Martins and the prosecution team, while saying nothing of the Zimmermans) agrees with everything that Trayvon's girlfriend said about the phone call. We will see how that turns out.

Speaking of MSNBC claiming Zimmerman is white, have they also given up on that "right wing gun nut" label, since Zimmerman is a registered Democrat? (Don't think they'll be mentioning that one).

Finally, Trayvon's mother had another interview, a mutually respectful one with Bill O'Reilly. Mr. Crump said that she felt "This shouldn't be about racial issues; it should be about justice."

I agree. How about you?

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorbind.

Do you play chess? If not, you should. You never take what your opponent offers you. I appreciate your showing all of the cards in your hand. Meditate on that complement and you will get my meaning.

og said...

No it was racist cause he thought he would get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Colorbind

Your problem is that you don't read clearly.

You stated: "It's interesting how you now soften to you "see how people may come to conclude"..where before you were so certain there was hard evidence showing that he actually did hunt down a kill a boy for racist reasons. What changed?"

NOTHING has changed. This is what I said in my first comment April 12, 2012 3:12 PM. "Based on hard evidence, Zimmerman could very well be guilty of "hunting down and killing an innocent boy". In fact, that is very credible.

(I then gave evidence in both Zimmerman and Trayvon defense)

I further continued: "Right now it's open ended. So for you to claim "the evidence to date says he is NOT guilty of those things for which you have already convicted him" is blantly false."



READ. I clearly stated "Zimmerman could" it is "open ended".

The more you rant, the more you confuse youself.

Do me a favor and carefully read what I've written.

Thank you.

ColorBind said...

@Chauncey: I've played a lot of chess, but not lately. You refuse to "deal" the cards I've shown so far, yet apparently you have only one to play (see Whoopi's damn card).


@og: Please equate "thought he could get away with it" and "I'm going to call 911 and tell them exactly what I'm doing, including giving my name, address and phone number, then wait for the police."
You're JOKING, right?


@Anonymous: I scanned up top, and you are correct. I did overstate your words. I apologize. Clearly, I agree this is open-ended.

I still take exception with your contention that there is "very credible, hard evidence" that Z "hunted down and killed a boy for racist reasons".

As we've come to learn, most of that "hard evidence" was distortions, dishonest editing, out of date images, emotional talk, and
pimping for viewers. (NBC's video YESTERDAY claimed a "WHITE MAN" killed a black teenager.)

If you deem this a rant, feel free to do so, but I will repeat my request:

Kindly show HARD EVIDENCE that Zimmerman, for racial reasons (that was the original contention, and one with which you have agreed) murdered an innocent boy.

After all of this "ranting" and back and forth, I'm still sincerely asking for the same thing.

What SPECIFIC actions by Zimmerman "clearly show" that he murdered someone because of race? Thank you.

sabrinabee said...

"@Sabrina. You don't get it. Black people have no rights that whites or non-blacks are bound to respect. If Trayon put his hands up, was deferent, and produced a slave pass none of this would have happened. Don't you realize that?"

CD, It's amazing that they can justify it in their heads and make it sound alright to them.

@Colorbind, I am no longer going to engage in the circular argument with you. Your are either incapable of taking a view outside of the position you have decided to stake your views on or you are deliberately being obtuse with your long winded explanations based in false interpretation. Moving on.

ColorBind said...

@sabrinabee: You apparently would rather "take a leap" than interact. That's your right. I have stated that I would be backing Martin if the roles were reversed, and I have repeatedly asked for evidence counter to what I have seen. (HINT: That means I am OPEN to other viewpoints, if they are SUPPORTED).

Martin's mom made a statement that seemed to make sense, then countered it (via email) with statements that didn't.

The reason I took 741 words to answer your 290 is that it took that many to adequately answer your contentions -- some of which seemed illogical (and the DA says there was NO racial slur).

My mind is still open. Apparently yours, not nearly so much.

Brotha Wolf said...

It's amazing that whites want the entire black community to be held accountable for the acts of a few knuckleheads, but will run like hell when confronted about their own crap and the responsibilities to fix it.

SMH.

Neocon_Hater said...

"The former are now obsessed with "black on black" crime as they plead and prey for our salvation."

Yes, we do care about black on black crime because your communities are judged by them as well, not as you think that we limit it to black on white assaults. "Stop snitchin'", is a wonderful, vibrant community ethos. Do you think anyone of any race is going to venture into Murderville and feel great because they mostly just murder their own?
Give me a break.

Your jewish, eternal victimist rhetoric is finished.

"Outliers become immunizers; hate crimes become not a habit of whites against people of color, but rather a trend of white suffering and oppression. I try not to legitimate such foolishness with a response."

Because you are a damn minstrel.

Jafafa said...

Let's say Martin WAS on top of Zimmerman.

Facts we know: An armed man followed an unarmed child. The armed man was told not to follow him, yet continued (no supposition there, he can be heard on the 911 tape continuing to follow.)

Stipulate that Martin ends up on top of Zimmerman.

Fact: Zimmerman shoots Martin dead.

Now, if Zimmerman has the legal right to stand his ground (and even following is somehow considered "standing,") then why doesn't MARTIN have a right to stand HIS ground?

You're unarmed, a man with a gun is following you. Wait, let's say Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed.

You're unarmed, a man is following you. You have no right to stand your ground.

You're unarmed, you're following someone, that's standing your ground. How does that even compute?

One ridiculous Republican spokesman said that any claim Martin had to self-defense ended when Martin had Zimmerman on the ground. That at that point the threat to Martin was, in his very words, "the threat had been neutralized."


So what have we learned? Being armed and following someone is valid reason to be afraid enough to legally kill.

Being unarmed and being followed is NOT a valid reason to (allegedly) hit someone with your fists.

Armed follower: not a threat.
Unarmed person you're following: a threat.

And best of all... man who just shot you dead: neutralized former threat.

The very proof of the racism inherent in every lame defense is that issue - that even had Martin done exactly what conservatives claim, his actions while unarmed are deemed MORE of a threat than being followed by an armed man WHO SUBSEQUENTLY KILLS YOU.

Even with "facts" stretched to the lengths that the conservatives define to their greatest benefit, there's still a glaring inequity in treatment under the law that that they just can't and won't see, and that they ardently justify.

Jafafa said...

Correction, in one above sentence I incorrectly described Zimmerman as unarmed, just before "does this computer..." etc.

So. Unarmed, being followed, no right to stand your ground.

ARMED, following someone, THAT'S standing your ground.

Anonymous said...

"Stop snitchin'", is a wonderful, vibrant community ethos.

--------

As if it only was used in the black community, strawman. White and Latino gangs also have that same ethos. You point? Meaningless, in this debate.

Anonymous said...

When I first read the post I questioned the 'neccessity' of the first paragraph. I am not a regular reader and although I agree with what Mr. DeVega wrote afterwards, I did think it inappropriate to begin the piece heralding what would be a gross miscarriage of 'justice', regardless of how satisfying some might find the idea.

Then I read (some of) the comments that followed and decided maybe that first paragraph had some purpose after all...

ColorBind said...

@jafafa: As a lifelong independent who doesn't believe that either person was a threat until somebody started swinging, I'm curious to know why you think this is a "Conservative vs Liberal issue".

Personally, I see it as a legal issue of whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting.

Anonymous said...

When this was featured on the Johnathan Turley blog I could see the racial overtones of the outrage. There was no comparison to the Martin case because the guy was robbed, not killed and if caught the robbers will face justice. The problem was that a lot of people refuse to stand up for an underdog. They'd rather film it or laugh. Its pathetic and there is something wrong with people who think that a robbery is funny. Maybe there is more to the story but that part was disturbing.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: I think you've got some morons who see muggings as just more entertainment (a curbside edition of the Jerry Springer Show).

Many other are afraid to get involved because they figure they'll get the same or worse. Sadly, these assaults don't take place in front of the Guardian Angels or a group of Navy Seals. Then the attackers would be exposed for the cowards they are.

Did you change your mind on that first paragraph because you feel Chauncey used it as bait?

Anonymous said...

ColorBind said to jafafa: "As a lifelong independent who doesn't believe that either person was a threat until somebody started swinging."

That's an interesting statement. So you do not feel that Zimmerman was a threat to Trayvon when he was following him?

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: 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.

BTW: I'm still curious why you changed your mind on Chauncey's first paragraph.

Anonymous said...

@ Colorbind

You avoided answering the question.

Let me rephrase the question differently- based on Trayvon's girlfriend's statement, do you feel Trayvon could have reasonably believed Zimmerman posed a threat to him?

I (and perhaps majority of people) would feel threatened if I sensed someone was following me..btw Zimmerman doesn't dispute he was following Trayvon in the beginning. It's not about being guilty of anything/ having the person actually physically threatened me.

And you have me lost about this- "BTW: I'm still curious why you changed your mind on Chauncey's first paragraph." Don't know what you're talking about???

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous:
I answered your question as it was stated, and I will now answer the way it was restated. 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.

In your comment above (4/14 1:01 PM)
you originally questioned the necessity of the first paragraph, and then later decided that it might serve a purpose. What changed?

Anonymous said...

ColorBind

I read the comment above at 4/14 1:01pm- that was not me.


You stated: "Physically, I doubt that Trayvon would feel threatened by a guy five inches shorter than him."

Funny enough, Zimmerman was following Trayvon in a car, so there is no way Trayvon would know his height. Combine this with the fact that Trayvon is young (and without a violent criminal record), unarmed, and this occured in the evening (perhaps it was semi-dark)- unless you are really trying to stick your head in the sand, majority of people would feel threatened if they knew they were being followed.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: Pardon me for assuming that "Anonymous" equals "Anonymous". You can understand my confusion.

Trayvon may have been talking about Zimmerman in the car. I assumed they were both on foot at that point. At this point, both of our perspectives seem to be assumptions. But the final point for me is this: 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? Even people who carry weapons are taught that avoidance is the number 1 tactic.

Anonymous said...

Colorbind asked: "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?"

LOL! And what makes you sooo sure Zimmerman is telling the truth?! Why do you give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, when in fact it could have been Zimmerman who confronted Martin?

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: I'll give them BOTH the benefit of the doubt, which means NEITHER is guilty until the evidence is analyzed. Zimmerman might have confronted Martin. Martin might have confronted Zimmerman.

BTW: As to your truck theory: take a look at videos of where the attack occurred, and tell me if you think Zimmerman's vehicle could have been within 70 feet of Martin's "residence".

PS: I hope this was addressed to the right anonymous. It's so hard to tell, sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Colorbind, all the above was in response to your original statement: "As a lifelong independent who doesn't believe that either person was a threat until somebody started swinging."

Not quite, Zimmerman could resonably be perceived as a threat when he was following Trayvon.


Colrbind stated: "BTW: As to your truck theory: take a look at videos of where the attack occurred, and tell me if you think Zimmerman's vehicle could have been within 70 feet of Martin's "residence"."

I tried googling images of where the crime scence occured but only got videos of where Trayvon's "memorial" site was. Do you have any credible links you can suggest that I can check out?

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: "Not quite?" Are you saying Trayvon would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman just for following him? Paranoia is one thing, an actual threat is something else. Assault and battery are two SEPARATE crimes. Following is neither. Fear, real or imagined, is only validated with close action.

I'm having trouble finding videos of the location, although they show a long strip of grass between the buildings with a single long sidewalk. Travyon was spotted on Retreat View Circle. Here's an aerial Google shot of the part of the street with the sidewalk. Unless Trayvon was right at the entrance to that walk, Zimmerman would have had to get out of the truck to get anywhere near him.
I don't know which end of Retreat View Circle Zimmerman was at, but that sidewalk area looks to be a lot longer than a football field.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sugexp=pfwc&cp=26&gs_id=p4&xhr=t&q=the+retreat+at+twin+lakes+sanford+fl&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=960&bih=675&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

What do you think?

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: You'll have to zoom in on the image to see the street clearly. Retreat View Circle is the first street inside the complex on the right edge, bordered by the exterior streets of Oregon Avenue and South Oregon Avenue.

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: Doing a little more research: The 7-11 was at 1125 Rinehart Road, just about a mile from Retreat View Circle. This means that Trayvon would have entered the complex from Oregon, then either come in via Twin Trees, or gone between the top homes on Retreat View in order to get to that sidewalk. So logically (based on the actual layout of the complex) Zimmerman would have lost sight of him when he went around back to go down the sidewalk, and would have had to exit his vehicle to see where he went, so he could tell the police accurately.

Thanks for the homework. You look at the complex and tell me if this makes sense.

Anonymous said...

ColorBind Asked: "Are you saying Trayvon would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman just for following him? Paranoia is one thing, an actual threat is something else. Assault and battery are two SEPARATE crimes. Following is neither. Fear, real or imagined, is only validated with close action."

Trayvon would have not been justified in killing Zimmerman but in using force against Zimmerman the minute Zimmerman approached Trayvon after following him (if this was the case).

According to Florida Law:


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

The law is based on one's reasonable perception of another's action.

Thanks, I took a look at the weblink you provided. Couldn't make anything of it though, besides of course the likley path both men travelled.

What confused me was your statemnt:
"BTW: As to your truck theory: take a look at videos of where the attack occurred, and tell me if you think Zimmerman's vehicle could have been within 70 feet of Martin's "residence"."

I did not follow what you meant by this.

I actually stumbled across this website by typing in other key words- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: Interesting link, mostly recalling what we know, although two witnesses claim Zimmerman straddled Martin, though this could be to check him after the shooting, and the police say one of those witnesses changed her story. The NYT map makes it clearer that Zimmerman was likely going somewhere when he saw Trayvon, and it badly damages the idea that the shooting was within 70 feet of Travis' home -- by that map, the two were 100 yards apart. This goes to my other comment, with claims that Martin was within 70 feet of the residence when the truck was nearby. Clearly not possible based on the videos -- which showed plenty of grass, and the map which shows likely 150 yards from a parking space and Trayvon's "home". From the NYT map, it's doubtful that Zimmerman's truck was within 70 feet of Martin.

Anonymous said...

Colorbind

Truth be told I trust little of what the police claim- in fact, I feel the the intense scrutiny should have fallen on the police department (Zimmerman second).

I linked the website to point out that one really can't make much of the little facts right now. The 70-100 yards away from Trayvon's home makes little difference because the site of the shooting suggests to me Trayvon was headed home... Zimmerman on the other hand appears to have been following Trayvon at some point.

If the prosecutor has no new solid evidence, I see Zimmerman walking and not because he is "innocent" but because lack of evidence would justly warrant his aquittal.

Wonder if the autopsy report will reveal something "breath taking"...

ColorBind said...

@Anonymous: The "evidence" says a lot of things, which is why it needs to be fully vetted. But the 70 feet from home claim looks very bad. I still wonder why the charge was elevated to 2nd Degree Murder. The charge on the police report was "Homicide/negligent manslaughter/unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act."

I'm also looking forward to seeing the autopsy results, and wonder why only one of the two was drug tested.

Anonymous said...

Not sure why the prosecutor elevated it to 2nd degree murder, but my hope is that she uncovered hard new evidence and not because she is being overzealous.

The only thing that the 70 feet from home tells me is that Trayvon did not run like his girlfriend advised him, but this is already known.

Colorbind asked: "I'm also looking forward to seeing the autopsy results, and wonder why only one of the two was drug tested."

The intense media scrutiny should have fallen on the police department. It's a shame how much potential evidence was (could have been) lost due to a careless investigation.