Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Funkenpants wrote:
par wrote:

I think the idea is that the color shouldn't matter =/

So the census and demographic researchers should just ignore race entirely? If that's the case, why are we talking about a black kid getting shot by a white vigilante, and not just saying a kid got shot by a vigilante?

Oh I agree with you. But trying to deliberately put a color on a hispanic person IS the issue. Its devolving (or started as) into a race issue from what I can tell because the one who got killed WAS black. And since GZ *wasnt purely white* the race carders need to make sure everyone watching this case understands that GZ was acting as a *white* person when the incident happened.

At least that's what I see

GZ should absolutely be in jail. He *killed* someone with lethal force and as far as anyone can tell, the person he killed wasn't armed.

PAR

Also, the idiot New Black Panthers who made that bounty claim? Arrested.

Prederick wrote:

No Jonah, noone in the black community is talking about or address Black-on-black crime, and because the justice department is headed by a black man, this means that the entire criminal justice system in this country did a 180 and became pro-negro.

This line gets invoked on every right-wing board every time something like this happens. It's like guys like Goldberg have it on a macro. It's almost ritual invocation by now.

Also, I give you credit for making it through a Jonah Goldberg piece. Even liberal bloggers I read largely stopped referring to the guy's work because it's so relentlessly stupid that it seemed more designed to generate page counts from click throughs than make a rational point.

Prederick wrote:

Also, the idiot New Black Panthers who made that bounty claim? Arrested.

I guess he'll need that $10k for bail.

I was wondering...can Martin's parents sue the police for an obviously botched investigation? Are they held liable for when timely evidence (such as D&A levels) are not collected and a potential crime isn't even prosecutable any longer?

Funkenpants wrote:
Seth wrote:

There's a lot of things wrong with that article, but I have to grudgingly admit some of his points are valid. As a "racialist," as this board has labeled me, even I'm not okay with the term "white Hispanic." Not only does it not make any sense, it seems intentionally misleading.

What color is a hispanic?

Hmm.. Suave?

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Seth wrote:

There's a lot of things wrong with that article, but I have to grudgingly admit some of his points are valid. As a "racialist," as this board has labeled me, even I'm not okay with the term "white Hispanic." Not only does it not make any sense, it seems intentionally misleading.

What color is a hispanic?

Hmm.. Suave? :D

RICO!

Can we please keep the "What is race?" crap out of this thread?

Nevin73 wrote:

I was wondering...can Martin's parents sue the police for an obviously botched investigation? Are they held liable for when timely evidence (such as D&A levels) are not collected and a potential crime isn't even prosecutable any longer?

I foresee several lawsuits, both against the city of Sanford, and wrongful death vs GZ.

Seth wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...

I umm. There's a lot of things wrong with that article, but I have to grudgingly admit some of his points are valid. As a "racialist," as this board has labeled me, even I'm not okay with the term "white Hispanic." Not only does it not make any sense, it seems intentionally misleading.

The word Hispanic is about the least meaningful word in the English Language. Hispanic can describe anyone from a blue-eyed blonde from Spain to a dark-skinned person from the Dominican Republic to a Native tribesman from Paraguay. It's not even meaningful in terms of language, because it covers people from Brazil and from the Guianas.

What's more, I suspect the Zimmerman's are well aware of all of this, as just about anyone from a Latin or South American country who comes to this county is immediately confused by the distinction. My Panamanian grandmother never did decide if it applied to her or not.

kazooka wrote:
Seth wrote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...

I umm. There's a lot of things wrong with that article, but I have to grudgingly admit some of his points are valid. As a "racialist," as this board has labeled me, even I'm not okay with the term "white Hispanic." Not only does it not make any sense, it seems intentionally misleading.

The word Hispanic is about the least meaningful word in the English Language. Hispanic can describe anyone from a blue-eyed blonde from Spain to a dark-skinned person from the Dominican Republic to a Native tribesman from Paraguay. It's not even meaningful in terms of language, because it covers people from Brazil and from the Guianas.

What's more, I suspect the Zimmerman's are well aware of all of this, as just about anyone from a Latin or South American country who comes to this county is immediately confused by the distinction. My Panamanian grandmother never did decide if it applied to her or not.

To be fair, the term "white hispanic" is not the butt-pull some folks are trying to make it out to be. Most government programs define race and ethnicity along two different lines, with the answer to "ethnicity" being "Latino/Hispanic or Not Latino/Hispanic" and the "race" answer being the usual mishmash of color words, origin words, and so on.

I'm not bringing this up to further any debate about the validity of these terms, just that they were already in place. People saying it's being twisted or made up to promote a narrative have to walk a fine line here. The term is not being made up, but I personally believe it's being needlessly pushed in order to make a more dramatic story.

edit: Also, Goldberg should go back to the goatee. It made his exterior match the douchebag within.

edti2: Not that everyone with a goatee is a douchebag. But some dudes just have one, and you look at them, and you think, "Wow. That guy is Admiral Saline of the Imperial Navy, Douchecannon Special Tactics Division."

As a White Hispanic like Zimmerman. I never use that term or even think about it. I probably look more "white" than Zimmerman but not that much more. I have had Mexicans come up to me and speak Spanish. I am not very good at Spanish so I decline to talk. Most of the time these same people then speak English to me much better than I can speak Spanish.

White Hispanic is for others to categorize. It is not for me.

I like to think of myself like this. I am an American from California with mid-western white and Mexican heritage. Where else besides America (USA) could I be from?

ABC news got its hands on a video of George Zimmerman the night of the shooting. Its from a police surveillance camera at the station. It appears to show no visable injuries.

The back of his head certainly didnt look like it had been damaged at all.

NathanialG wrote:

The back of his head certainly didnt look like it had been damaged at all.

No, but it shows him in handcuffs, which is probably why the police leaked it to ABC.

That video appears to me to be kind of a huge deal. No blood, no apparent broken nose, no marks whatsoever on the back of his head (supposedly "repeatedly pounded" on the concrete). Further, no "uncontrollable crying" of remorse, at least not right then, which would have been fairly soon after the shooting. He seemed kind of nonchalant.

At one point the officer examines the back of his head, and doesn't appear to think much of what he saw. Keep in mind that GZ's "injuries" weren't enough for anyone to insist on a trip to the hospital, including GZ himself.

IMO, that video will not help GZ's case, or his claims about what happened.

Jeff-66 wrote:

That video appears to me to be kind of a huge deal. No blood, no apparent broken nose, no marks whatsoever on the back of his head (supposedly "repeatedly pounded" on the concrete). Further, no "uncontrollable crying" of remorse, at least not right then, which would have been fairly soon after the shooting. He seemed kind of nonchalant.

At one point the officer examines the back of his head, and doesn't appear to think much of what he saw. Keep in mind that GZ's "injuries" weren't enough for anyone to insist on a trip to the hospital, including GZ himself.

IMO, that video will not help GZ's case, or his claims about what happened.

I wish a video of what actually happened that night would materialize so we could cut through all the speculation and hearsay and actually see justice done.

Wow, the police are totally in on this. No doubt about it anymore to me.

This is pretty damning. I mean, from what you can see on that video, he most definitely hasn't sustained injuries that required lethal force to defend himself.

PAR

The mother of a 13 year old eyewitness says her son was not sought for questioning regarding what he saw, for a full 5 days -- the boy wasn't home, so they didn't come back for another 3. Eight full days after the event did the cops finally show up to question this witness.

Link

What she says transpired once the investigator finally showed is interesting.

I think this PD is in big trouble. Also, the mayor of Sanford has stated that they are "sitting on a powderkeg".

Jeff-66 wrote:

I think this PD is in big trouble. Also, the mayor of Sanford has stated that they are "sitting on a powderkeg".

Understatement of the quarter, for sure. They're jumping up and down on an antitank mine, flailing at it with a sledgehammer, and yet somehow have not managed to set it off.

So let me ask a question as I really can't answer it w/out having non-political thoughts. WHY would the family of TM want to trademark anything about this situation?

I honestly do not understand except to believe that they want a monetary advantage for promoting what happened to their son.

PAR

Well, one definite use would be to prevent other people from profiteering with his name, or even pushing products suggesting that black men in hoodies are excellent targets for upstanding, patriotic Americans.

"Git yer Trayvon Martin Target Dummy, righcheer...."

par wrote:

So let me ask a question as I really can't answer it w/out having non-political thoughts. WHY would the family of TM want to trademark anything about this situation?

I honestly do not understand except to believe that they want a monetary advantage for promoting what happened to their son.

PAR

Glad someone asked this.

My thought is that this was likely done at the suggestion of their attorney(s), who probably informed them that "if you don't, someone else will, and they -- not you, will be profiting". I think Trayvon's parents should be the one's compensated, if anyone, and who knows how much money they'll need for legal expenses throughout all this, including potential suits against the city and a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman.

edit: tannhauser'd

Malor wrote:

Well, one definite use would be to prevent other people from profiteering with his name, or even pushing products suggesting that black men in hoodies are excellent targets for upstanding, patriotic Americans.

"Git yer Trayvon Martin Target Dummy, righcheer...."

Makes sense I guess...

God our society is disgusting.

PAR

par wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, one definite use would be to prevent other people from profiteering with his name, or even pushing products suggesting that black men in hoodies are excellent targets for upstanding, patriotic Americans.

"Git yer Trayvon Martin Target Dummy, righcheer...."

Makes sense I guess...

God our society is disgusting.

PAR

Isn't trademarking it a requirement to have something like them having a Trayvon Martin Memorial Fund or something actually work, as well?

Nevermind

Kannon wrote:
par wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, one definite use would be to prevent other people from profiteering with his name, or even pushing products suggesting that black men in hoodies are excellent targets for upstanding, patriotic Americans.

"Git yer Trayvon Martin Target Dummy, righcheer...."

Makes sense I guess...

God our society is disgusting.

PAR

Isn't trademarking it a requirement to have something like them having a Trayvon Martin Memorial Fund or something actually work, as well?

Well if this is the case then my ignorance is showing through. This I can understand.

PAR

Isn't trademarking it a requirement to have something like them having a Trayvon Martin Memorial Fund or something actually work, as well?

I hadn't heard that, but that certainly doesn't mean much. Anyone else know?

IANAL, so I could well be wrong. Seems a sane thing to cover your bases. In addition, even if they planned on doing nothing... it prevents anyone else from using his name to profiteer. It's a perfectly reasonable move, especially in an insane world.

Oh, and:

God our society is disgusting.

That particular bit was my twisted imagination. You should aim your disgust with that scenario at me, nobody else.