Trayvon had no criminal background. He was from a middle class family and was getting ready to be a second generation college student. This type of careless blogging is part of the reason that barriers are so difficult to break down. Denial of the problem of race in this country does not make it go away.
It is not true that Trayvon Martin had no criminal background; he was caught with, and had photographs on his cell phone, of burglary tools and female jewelry, and on other occasion was suspended from school for using, and suspicion of selling, marijuana.
The only reason he was not arrested for either of these crimes was that Police Chief Charles Hurley of the School District Police Department, for whatever reason, conspired to hide these facts, as reported in the Miami Herald.
If you believe that a discussion of race within this country is needed then at least keep it honest.
Oops you got me started... yes boy not child had pictures of weed and guns on his cell phone. Sounds to me like Tryvon was really up to no good behind the scenes. Oh by the way, what were the parents doing while Tryvon was taking a night stroll in a gated community at night after it was apparent the young adult had gotten into trouble recently? If it was my son the last thing I would allow him to do is go anywhere after the trouble he got himself into. Seems like the parents are trying to cover up their own inadequacies about raising him and what was Obama doing out taking a stroll at night? Lol
The list goes on and on and on....black on white crime. Yes it is true black on white crime is so overwhelming. Why is it so taboo to speak of? Its a matter of statistics but when pointed out by a white man its a matter of racism to some. I just wish the headlines read "Man hung for murder! If you murder you will hang too. The short rope of justice sees no color only victoms, end of story."
the gated community is a complex and his dad was shacking up there with his girlfriend and the teen was walking around like teens do- but i dont think because he was a trouble making dope smoking thieving punk he is better off dead! zimmerman was skulking around in an unmarked car on neighborhood watch-concealed weapon and no amber light-if he was a man with a gun like the MEN i know that carry guns, he would have said something like "im the neighborhood watch man! young man-whats your business around here? i have a gun and ill shoot you if you try anything!" no he had to act like a fool- he makes gun owners look like stupid racists because he is a moron
DRL - how do we know what GZ did or did not say? How do we know what TM did or did not do?
GZ was legal carrying a weapon he was licensed to carry.
I don't see the problem, except with people distorting facts (not necessarily you, DRL)
Two guys, one a Black six foot football player and the other a tubby, out of trim Hispanic, start a scuffle that gets out of hand, resulting in the Hispanic guy shooting the Black guy dead. He claimed self-defense and proved it in court where he was found not guilty of committing murder or manslaughter.
All other versions are based on nothing but supposition and personal opinion.
Zimmerman didn't "prove" anything, except perhaps that in stand your ground states it is okay to start a fight with someone and then shoot them dead if they fight back. "Not guilty" is most certainly not the same as "innocent;" unfortunately, only one side got to tell their side of the story, as is likely in these types of cases.
Scindapsus, - how do we know what GZ did or did not say? How do we know what TM did or did not do?
Please prove who started what.
GZ “proved”, via his council, that he was not guilty of the charges presented by the prosecution.
“Stand Your Ground” was not brought up by the prosecution nor the defense during the trial.
“Innocent” is not a legal finding.
Sorry, I leave "proofs" to mathematicians and fools. As far as evidence, though, yes, George Z did get to present his side of the story, unlike Trayvon. It's odd that you don't see the biases inherent in such an asymmetry. I suspect it's difficult to convict a killer who claims self-defense, particularly if the victim is black.
The fact that "Stand Your Ground" was not formally introduced into the trial hardly means it was irrelevant to the events nor the trial!
There is a compelling reason that the legal opposite of "guilty" is "not guilty" rather than "innocent." It is nonsensical to say that a not-guilty verdict "proves" that someone's claims of innocence are true.
Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was convicted and tried on a second-degree murder charge. He was found innocent of that charge because he did not enter the confrontation with ill intent to kill. That does not mean that his actions leading up to the confrontation weren't wrong or at the very least ill-conceived - but he wasn't tried for that.
Had the prosecutor had any brains, he would have charged Zimmerman with involuntary manslaughter or something similar. Instead the DAs office succumbed to public pressure and went for the glory conviction - and it backfired.
As for the president, I did not see his speech but read the transcript instead. Anyone who says the presidents words were anything but thoughtful and hopeful has a personal bias against the man. I'm no Democrat - far from it - but it's high time some people stop seeing the president as some evil man, stroking his bald cat, and plotting to destroy the country. You may not agree with his decisions, you may not like his politics, but to say the man has some evil intent - to say he's trying to destroy the very country that elected him as a senator and its president - is simple-minded and just plain stupid.
Nobody said anything about the president being a evil man he just need to look unpon the real victim like that college girl that got shot last year in chicargo i admire the president for that he need to stop folling the media
What a tedious load of sanctimonious claptrap! Not one of us knows what happened other than one person killed another with a legally possessed firearm. A jury found the charged offender not guilty under Florida law. And, ohbrother, manslaughter was on the table following the judge's jury instructions.
If you want to discuss race relations, look to yourselves and your reactions when around people different from you.
And, mandrake, (although I believe you're a troll because no one could be as ignorant and illiterate as you appear)I agree the President needs to get out of this because it is beneath the office he holds.
1.- When President Obama was 17 he was the same class as Trayvon.
2.- Trayvon Martin did NOT have a criminal background.
3.- People can care about more than one thing at a time.
4.- Trayvon Martin WAS the real victim, he was an unarmed teenager walking home at night.
The notion that the police chief somehow conspired to hide Martin's criminality when there was no reason is a paranoid delusion. Further bring up Trayvon Martin's so-called criminal background and drug use only shows the racism of those that bring it up. Not only is it irrelevant to the case, it does not justify Zimmerman killing Martin.
'You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago,' Obama said an article by Tom Drake 9/07/2013
"You know when I read this I said that could have been my son. Another way of saying that Trayvon Martin could have been me especially if I find my son or myself bashing a mans head into the sidewalk" 22
Phoenix you can make this a matter of race if you want to. Or you can forget that George was a "Mexican" and you can forget that Martin was a "African American" and you can forget the the fact that I am a "Caucasian". Or you can realize that Trayvon Martin could have been me.
You see Phoenix not just but one man, had a dream that there children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their CHARACTER. You are judging Martin not by his CHARACTER but by the color of his skin. 22