From the facts in evidence that seems to be the case this timeOriginally Posted by redfox
From the facts in evidence that seems to be the case this time
??
What do you mean...?
As Yossarian correctly points out, the facts in evidence seem to indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated force against Zimmerman, making Martin the assailant and Zimmerman the victim.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining that. The state of FL sees it otherwise, quite obviously. And, my query, of course, was what if the older assailant & younger victim had reverse races? The quote from the article, below, underscores the cultural context behind my proposed thought experiment.
Interesting how we all hear different facts, eh? Probably the crazy terrain of the media. Nonetheless, here is another news story. She does a much better job than I of explaining why & how race is such a potent backdrop to this story, as with so many stories.
From today's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us...pagewanted=all
Excerpt:
"For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people."
PS -- I have a hard time believeing that the teen assaulted the adult. If Mr. Martin was indeed stoned, a hughly plausible theory, the defense narrative of him pursuing an older, bigger, unknown person in the dark is laughable. And, being stoned tends to render one less than physical. All in all, I think the teen jumps twitchy neighborhood armed dude is pretty silly.
"“Profiling, stereotyping, the disparity in treatment of African-Americans when it comes to criminal matters, how imbalanced it all is in the eyes of African-Americans,” said the Rev. Lowman Oliver, the pastor at St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford. “That’s why so many eyes are on this case. It’s nationwide and international.” "
"“We are going to have to have a dialogue in this nation about racial matters,” Mr. Oliver said."
Yes.
"Rodeosweetheart, good question! Since the heart of this case as it's been covered IS race, I consider it an interesting thought experiment to reverse the races & see how that might change one's thinking about it all."
But this is a useless exercise, imposing your own ideas about race and racism and then discussing a hypothetical. I thought the heart of this case was about the facts, about who did what to whom and whether a man should be convicted of murder. If you are talking about coverage, then why are you not interested in the fact that the man who is on trial does not self-identify as "white"? Why should you impose your views of black/white dichotomy as being the reality here, when at least one party to this situation has already said he is not "white"?
I guess my question is that why do observers, consumers of the media, get to define what this case is about because of a certain way of looking at the world, defining the population as being in group or another? Isn't this the same racism--where the ruling class--in this case, the noninvolved media-consumer, gets to define "who is a what", and therefore what happened--that has plagued our country for the last 400 years?
And I say "our country", as I have had relatives settle this country, immigrating since 1630 and helping to form Rhode Island, in search of religious freedom (Gov Bradford threw my grandfather out of Salem for not being a Puritan), so it is as much my country as it is the latest immigrant who has been sworn in as a citizen, regardless of what any of our skin color, religion, politics, or gender may be. And that is the way it should be--all of our country.
Rodeosweetheart, my intent in raising the question is to engage is the larger dialogue about race in America. I am always most interested in how current events elucidate our national status, especially on the big issues. Since I am not in the courtroom, absolutely I cannot define what this case is about legally. It is the sociology that intrigues me, and the perspectives of my fellow & sister SLF participants.
All of us bring our cultural context with us, whether we have been in this country for generates or for months. One of the big questions that race & cultural identity underscores is what is an American? I look forward to any comments!
No, the state of Fl doesn't necessarily see it otherwise, they're doing their job in trying the case so that the facts can come out in a neutral forum. Again, the assailant is the person who initiates force against the victim, not the one who followed or questioned, but the one who initiated force. Evidence from the trial suggests that the older person was not necessarily the assailant, regardless of so many's wishes.
Do you know why the Lady of Justice wears a blindfold?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well, silly me, believing that since the state brought charges against the accused, this is who they are naming as the assailant.
No, they have named him the defendant. Facts will determine whether or not he is the assailant. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote