How odd. An article was removed from The Guardian website, and now only this note has been left in its place.
This article has been taken down on 14 July 2013 pending investigation.
I guess they’ll investigate away. Meanwhile, you can read the article as originally posted.
Open season on black boys after a verdict like this
Posted:Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:25:00 GMTPosted:2013-07-14T08:07:42ZCalls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn’t like the look of him.
The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.
Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin’s heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.
There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.
Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.
But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin’s death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.
Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a “stand your ground” law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person “reasonably believes” it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.
Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?
Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.
“Fucking punks,” Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. “These assholes. They always get away.”
So true it’s painful. And so predictable it hurts.
I don’t know what’s wrong with it. Maybe the editors noticed a typo.
You mean, why did Martin not identify himself to Zimmerman? Maybe because when someone is following you, who you find creepy, the first thought that runs through your mind isn’t “oh, he finds me suspicious. If I tell him who I am he’ll leave me be”, it’s “why is this person following me, what is going on, is he going to attack me?”
As for why he didn’t run home, several people in the thread have explained how, in Martin’s shoes, they wouldn’t want a creepy stalker to know where they live. This stuff has been covered in the thread, you know.
I guess it’s nice to know that I don’t have to work very hard to parody you.
Who said I was bored? You, the non-assumer?
I didn’t say nothing of substance. I told you, clearly, that the answers you were looking for were already addressed in the thread and chided you for your childish desire to be spoon-fed.
Evidence of your social incompetence mounts.
You’re actually masturbating right now, aren’t you?
lol
.and clearly avoided the first part. What can I say?
I think it is relevant, to the extent that some people insist this was a racist issue. That statement is certainly racist, whereas “punk” is not.
A few non responses; but I will admit that it is the Troll who shines in this regard; not you. You just avoid stuff.
elind:
Yes, you are now, STILL making shit up.
Martin was on his way home you numbskull.
There is nothing suspucious about walking back from a store at night.
Moreover, for “suspicious activity” to mean anything, as I have said, fuck 4 or 5 times now, we have to agree upon the definition of it. Since you are using that as justification for Zimmerman profiling Martin, you need to provide the definition.
As I have said before, if you were not so goddamned dishonest and would actually reread thevthread, “suspicious activity” is far too vague and open to interpretation and personal biases-like racist ones held by you and Zimmerman-to be effective. Do you not understand that “suspicious activity is anything that looks suspicious” is circular reasoning?
Ignoring elind, because I don’t have the time/spoons to respond.
This is a great article.
In particular:
Since Zimmerman could flash a badge, there is no need to identifly or do anything other than to tell the aggressor to “FUCK OFF”. Which is why neighborhood watch should never, ever, approach anybody suspicious. DUH.
Just as you avoid everything Zimmerman should have done to defuse the situation, including not getting out of his vehicle. Tsk, tsk, your white hood keeps shining.
Nightshadequeen:
I hadnt thought of it that way, but people like elind are clearly victim blaming. The responsibility for defusing the situation rests, in their minds, on those who were the victims.
Elind also makes the mistake of assuming we see racism in isolation, rather than a pattern of events over time. Of course “punks” on its own is not racist, but taking Zimmermans actions, his statements, and his paranoia laced phone calls, as well as his bias against black people, the racism is easy to see. One would have to willfully ignore all of that to make the claim that there is no racism involved in this case.
I realize that you are a supporter of SYG. I think it is a dumb law.
I realize that you have no understanding of language, meaning in this case the difference between observing and stalking.
I realize that you made up stuff, again, about the “requirement” above, and I also realize that you are implicitly admitting that you believe Martin had a right to assault whoever was observing him, particularly a chubby creepy ass cracker of much smaller build.
I also realize that you think it is automatically bigoted to suggest that a person of color can make bad decisions, even illegal ones.
I understand you don’t have time to respond, and instead quote someone else. That is your right to be lazy.
However I must say that you too are a SYG supporter. Martin, according to you, had a right to assault anyone he felt was violating his privacy in the alley at night and it would have been unmanly, according to you, to have either explained himself or continued on home. Macho Man is alive and well with you, it would seem.
Try: “Yes, having read through the thread, I see that you are indeed correct. You and others have addressed that question multiple times.”
Yes I do. Observing is calling the police. Stalking is following and accosting, demanding to know information. Loser.
Bigots make up stuff all the time. Until you show when Zimmerman backed away and was followed and accosted, he was the aggressor. What you say or believe changes nothing, as it isn’t evidence.
Ah, now we get to the knitty-gritty. Observing from a block away, that’s okay. Getting out the vehicle in counter direction to neighborhood watch proctocol and not being more aggreessive, yes Zimmerman was the aggressor, and anybody, including you, could stand their ground and tell them to FUCK OFF. And return and physical contact.
No your bigotry is that Zimmerman, the aggressor, can do no wrong, and Martin, the victim, can do no right…he must submit to Zimmerman….
Actually I did, using keyword search and I can’t find what you allude to but are too lazy to even point out with a post number or two.
Your failure is not my problem.
Again, another attempt at avoidance. Nothing to say.
But you keep saying nothing anyway…
Elind, where is your conclusive evidence Zimmerman backed down and was fleeing his aggression???? your silence is deafening….
Seriously? The evidence is that he was sucker punched and unable to flee.
But I understand that evidence is of no relevance to you.
Just curious; what is your position on AGW?
God elind you are such a dishonest troll. You would be hard oressed to find supporters od SYG here, as many people do not find that law reasonable. People are saying that if the law holds equally, then Trayvon Martin should be able to employ it as much as your racist hero, Zimmerman.
Elind @519:
Once again, you assume tbat Martin threw the first punch. Sucker punched? For someone who claims to be using the evidence and facts, you continue to blatantly lie.
elind (#478)
You didn’t see what Trayvon was doing that night to judge it suspicious, yet you still feel justified in doing so.
(#480)
Black men and boys shouldn’t have to identify themselves to anyone but law enforcement.* It’s not reasonable to identify yourself to any jackass who comes up to demand to know what you’re doing. It’s completely fucking ludicrous to say that black people should have to work harder to defuse the extra suspicion they face just for being black or else risk being killed. Not that they don’t already try to defuse it a lot of the time, of course, but they wouldn’t have to at all if all you fucking racists would quit justifying what is clearly unfair.
It’s not black people’s job to make racists feel safer around them. (It doesn’t fucking work, anyway, as hundreds of years of history can show.)
(#510)
Nerd isn’t a supporter of SYG. He’s a supporter of equality before the law. That is, if there is a bad law, all people of all races should get to invoke it, not just the ones with more privilege than others. It’s racist fuckwads like you that make it impossible for people of color to get equal benefit of such laws, however they’re written on paper.
………
*And they should be hassled by police a great deal less often, too!
What evidence? Your conjecture, that if Martin stood his ground, he expected rightly Zimmerman to crawl away defeated? Again, where your conclusive evidence Zimmerman backed down and was followed. OR, SHUT THE FUCK UP BIGOT.
And I think SYG is a bad law. But it was on Martin’s side, not Zimmerman’s, since Zimmerman was the aggressor from the time he first followed Martin..,..
Look at that, Tony made the same point about equality vs. support for SYG. Watch elind ignore both of us and continue to accuse people of being in favor of SYG.
What you aren’t getting Elind, is that until Zimmerman backed down and fled the scene, by Root Cause Analysis he was the aggressor and responsible for anything that occurred during the incident.
Oh and elind, ‘cracker’ is nowhere near as racist as ‘nigger’. That you could even attempt such a false equivalence shows you as the racist pondscum you are.
You and others are supporters of SYG. You imply, whether you like it or not, that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman because Martin was being observed.
There is evidence that Zimmerman was assaulted and none that Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was racist. There was no evidence that Martin was initially assaulted, except in that you consider observation or, in worst case, being followed at a distance to constitute assault.
Word meanings are as fluid to you as logic is, not to mention your silly attempts at insult.
Time for my moonbat troll to end. It’s late. Goodnight.
A. Noyd:
Yup. Whatever fits his narrative of Zimmerman being in the right.
Not one damn thing Zimmerman did was right.
1- he had no reason to carry a gun
2- he had no reason to follow Trayvon
3- he had no reason to exit the vehicle
4- he had no reason to engage Trayvon
5- since he instigated the events, he had no recourse for self defense
Even IF Trayvon threw the first punch, he was within his rights to self defense, as he was doing nothing wrong when he was trailed by a racist fucker.
I never said Martin was initially assaulted. I said that YOUR narrative of poor George being assaulted first had no proof.
As A Noyd said, none of us supports SYG, but if it is law, then EVERYONE, including Trayvon, should be able to use it as defense. You are the one saying only Zimmerman should be able to use it as a defense.
NO FUCKWIT, ZIMMERMAN WAS AGGRESSIVELY STALKING MARTIN. Your spin won’t be the final one. Show where Zimmerman backed off his aggression prior to accosting Martin for no legitimate reason, having no badge…
Not paying attention to the evidence are you bigot. Your spin/OPINION is dismissed as bigotry. Zimmerman is a bigot. End of story. Prove otherwise with something other than your OPINION, which is dismissed before you express ity
Elind, for Zimmerman to be able to use SYG, he, the aggressor, had to flee and be followed. So, why can’t Martin stand his ground, tell Zimmerman to fuck off, and return any physical contact with physical contact?
Oh, that’s right, no black teen can stand his ground against anyone not black…We call that bigotry…..
Elind, as an AARP card carrying white male, and I respond to somebody following me back from the neighborhood pizza place where I went to procure dinner, and they get out of their vehicle and accost me for “evidence”, why can’t I tell them to fuck off, and take them down if they touch me? And that privilege is exactly what Martin had in his confrontation with Zimmerman, if one is truly colorblind….
You see Elind, what I am doing is giving Martin the ability as those advocating SYG mean to give to white males. That is color-blind. If you can’t/won’t see that, it is bigotry on your part….
elind, just in case you come back …
As did I at entry 462 That’s a link, click it … I made it easy for you to find and read since you’ve already shown your incompetence at “searching”.
Oh, and elind could you also explain what I didn’t understand in 465. Here I’ll just copy it again for you:
From Anthony K’s link:
7 to 9 year old … suspicious activity? Suspicious enough to phone the police? Yeah, this kid’s probably responsible for those break-ins … sure. WTF. Oh wait, here’s the suspicious part: black male. Everything other than that is irrelevant to those like GZ. But, no sign of racism on GZ’s part, no indeed, none at all.
So, elind what could a 7-9 yr old be doing that was “suspicious” enough to warrant calling the police? “Sneaking around” … or trying to elude the creepy guy always spying on that kid and his friends. Seriously, unless the 7-9 yr old is smashing windows or other out-and-out vandalism I can’t imagine how they could be “suspicious”.
This, as a pre-flounce comment in 500+ comment thread, where I am certain that this tragically myopic opinion has been dealt with at least once. It marks elind as someone not worth engaging with. A brick wall, for whatever reason incapable of grasping even one of the simpler concepts relevant to the debate. “He’s Hispanic so he can’t be racist” is like the “then why are there still monkeys” of racial politics.
(Well, except for the fact that the status quo apologists are hypocritical on the subject. Wasn’t elind also talking about how racist the word “cracker” is? How does that mesh with the implication that non-white people obviously can’t be racist?)
Zimmerman’s injuries can be evidence that he was assaulted or that Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman’s assault. We only have Zimmerman’s word on that, don’t we, since the horrible thug who dares mind his own business walking down the street in the evening is conveniently dead.
On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that Zimmerman is racist: his previous calls in which he goes as far as reporting a little black kid as suspicious (even if his reports of mostly black people weren’t obvious evidence of racism, they should be pretty damning evidence in relation to his rationality in identifying “threats” – he was spoiling for some (anti)-criminal activity).
elind:
Ohh, walking slowly in the rain. So scary. Would it be less suspicious if he were running? I mean, a black guy running for no reason – really?
Zimmerman was already followed him long before went through said poorly lit alley – which was a common shortcut for people going to their homes in that vicinity. It made sense for Martin to take the shortcut since HE LIVED THERE. Why do you try to make like someone walking down their own fucking neighborhood is something suspicious?
Not to mention, with a creepy guy following him by car, he probably thought it was a good idea to move away from the road.
It’s not the responsibility of honest citizens to jump through hoops to prove they’re not criminals. Especially not to someone who does not even have police authority.
upon which he could get shot in the back for “confirming” Zimmerman’s “suspicions” that he’s up to no good. He just can’t win, can he?
elind
As it turns out, Zimmerman could’t tell. He was wrong about Martin acting suspiciously and wrong to call the police. There was no legitimate reason for any of his actions, as Martin was not involved in any illegal activity at the time. Calling the police on someone for no reason (he couldn’t state any reason), is harassment.
Then the community might have come up with countermeasures, like setting up cameras in the neighborhood or in homes or a better alarm system, implementing a curfew, asking for more help from the police, etc. Harassing people for no reason is neither acceptable nor effective.
That must be the understatement of the year. Zimmerman himself said that he was “following” Martin in the call to the dispatcher. And you have little chance of evaluating a case of self defence if you ignore the context. It’s not that it was the action of getting out of the car and following that warranted physical self defence. If that had happened in the middle of the day with lots of people around on an open square, then the person who is followed would have many options available. If, however, it was in a deserted area, with no possibility to go into a store or of losing the pursuer, and if the pursuer was not keeping any safe distance (if a physical fight ensued, then that is evidence that the distance was not enough for either of them to be safe), then that can and actually should be perceived as threatening. The person who, without any reason, is acting in a way that is physically threatening and is putting the other person on the spot is the aggressor.
Actually, according to nightshadequeens quote of the police call, Martin did run:
so he apparently could *not* run away, as that didn’t work.
Blaming someone who finds themselves in a physically threatening situation doesn’t really work because
– they did not create the situation and are usually at a disadvantage as to the deescalation of it because it largely depends on the aggressor stopping their behavior, over which the other person has no control
and
– people react differently when threatened- they can be paralyzed or lose control or misjudge the situation or not come up with any good solution in time, etc.
– the situation often comes as a surprise and the victim doesn’t have much time to prepare for it, analyze it, etc. On the other hand the aggressor may have taken the time to prepare for the event (physical training, taking weapons, etc.)
If someone in a physically threatening situation defends themselves physically, that does not make them the “aggressor”, but the victim who is trying to save themselves from or mitigate harm in the best way they at that moment know how.
…
and elind from earlier:
Yeah, because someone in a car definitely lives in the area, and someone walking … doesn’t? Well, only makes sense if you assume that the poorer who don’t have cars or the strange people who are not afraid to be outside of a vehicle after dark are dangerous people. Right? And people in cars are known for being upstanding citizens and for staying only in the immediate area that they live in…come on!
Those who are forwarding the “Trayvon was acting suspicious” narrative without question should really acquaint themselves with the map of the neighbourhood. If the community regarded ‘walking behind houses’ as suspicious, they shouldn’t have put all those footpaths behind all the houses.
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=sanford+florida+gorla+pond&hl=en&sll=28.792202,-81.330242&sspn=0.003944,0.004823&t=h&hnear=Gorla+Pond&z=17
I believe this thread could be used as proof that racism makes you stupid. I will admit that there is only a small number of racists participating, but so far they’ve displayed overwhelming ignorance, stupidity and enough duplicitous behaviour and general sleaziness to make the GOP look like very naive seminary students.
I am sure that the suspicious person who designed all those suspicious footpaths will be next on Zimmerman’s List of Great Justice. Whoever is behind that must be the mastermind behind the epidemic of be-Skittled hoodlums plaguing His City. And with the power of Florida juries supporting him, he can become the hero that Florida deserves, not the one it needs.
Wow… this is ridiculous. Zimmerman showed himself to be racist and engaging in racial profiling with the tons of 911 calls he made reporting black people involved in suspicious activity. He followed Martin around, freaking him out, so the kid left the main road and switched to the footpaths behind the townhouses. I would have done the exact same thing, if a car were following me. He then got out of his vehicle (with his loaded gun), and followed Martin behind the townhouses, at which point Martin began to run towards his dad’s place (AKA towards the back entrance). All of this is from Zimmerman’s OWN statement, and the 911 calls. And yet, you still somehow have the audacity to say that Martin was somehow in the wrong, and Zimmerman in the right? EVERYTHING he has done to this point paints him as the aggressor, and Martin as the defender. The logical assumption to make at this point is that Zimmerman began chasing Martin, since he was running – if Martin was already running away, there would be no confrontation unless Zimmerman chased him. It’s pretty obvious at this point, after the dude followed him in a car, followed him on foot, and then CHASED him, that Martin felt endangered, felt the need to protect himself. I am no fan of the SYG law, to me it’s absolutely ridiculous, but if people are going to stand behind it, they have to recognize that MARTIN is the one protected by the law at this point! There is no possible way to portray Zimmerman as being the one who needed to defend himself.
And for Pete’s sake, elind, if you are going to somehow try and argue against my post, argue against specific points – just whining that I’ve “made stuff up” doesn’t give me any information about what points you think it is I’ve invented.
You know Elind, right now your only arguments are literally “If you guys say Martin did nothing wrong then you guys support SYG and Zimmerman is therefore NOT RACIST” and “Thats a lie. No I am not going to address what you said because its a lie and I know its a lie because I said it was a lie”. Also you have no business calling people lazy for not giving you a post number when you yourself wont even read the damn thread.
Also as a native Floridian myself I can tell you that the only people who think cracker, and the n-word are equally racist slurs think that way because they are either dumb or racist as fuck (usually a combination of the two).
I thought the claim f self defense had to be substantiated, not disproven. Otherwise anyone can kill an unarmed person and no one could ‘prove’ it wasn’t self defense. That would make it open season to commit murder when no one is watching.
That’s a large part of the issue with Stand Your Ground, it shifts how much substantiation is required to make it easier to claim self defense.