No question about its roots: White Supremacy and the Cracker Question
Posted on July 3, 2013 by djlwsu .
Thank you for posting this.
2013 Wrigley, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
2014 Cincy, Detroit, Moline, & Milwaukee
2015 Central Park
2016 Lexington, Ottawa, Toronto 1 & 2, Boston 1 & 2, Chicago 1 & 2 2017 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony 2018 Seattle 1 & 2, Missoula, Chicago 1
No problem...wish others would have at least considered the historically grounded argument. It's interesting to me that those who claim to be all about the ideals of our forefathers don't actually "get" what they were about, OR they actually want to go all Paula Deen at get back to a time when slaves were a reality.
do some of you think trayvon was at no blame of his own for his death ?
"I'm a gansta" "creepy ass cracka" pictures of travon that show a not so innocent kid ?
it's shame that he is dead but I don't think this zimmerman guy went after travon with the intention to kill him.
No question about its roots: White Supremacy and the Cracker Question
Posted on July 3, 2013 by djlwsu Standard
While little surprises me about CNN (Cable’s NON News), the sensational efforts to play off the George Zimmerman trial, to link the “N Word” to Cracker, and to situate the discussion within a discourse of “which is worse” is a testament to their failures as a network. As someone on Twitter and my colleague Rich King noted, the mere fact that CNN says Cracker but encodes the “N-word” tells us all we know, yet the conversation continues.
Despite amazing participants, the framing of the discussion, which centers whiteness (can’t have a discussion of “N word” without somehow bringing the debate back to whiteness), on false comparisons is telling! If CNN wanted to have a discussion to add depth to Zimmerman trial as it relates to Cracker but instead they wandered down the problematic road of “everyone is racist” and “everyone has their own slurs.”
Cracker has a long history; a longer history than America. Dating back at least to Shakespeare, the origins and meaning are disparate. Jelani Cobb, on NPR’s Code Switch, offers insight into its more contemporary usage:
“Cracker,” the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of “whip-cracker,” since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.).
Despite this very specific history, one that locates cracker within history of white supremacy and one that position itself outside this history, some still try to connect Cracker with “N word” as part of its narrative on “white victimhood” and “double standards. Joan Walsh took up this line of argumentation in a recent post:
From Glenn Beck’s the Blaze to the Breitbots to smaller right-wing shriekers to Twitter trolls everywhere, white grievance-mongers seemed less bothered by the fact that Martin allegedly used the term, than by Jeantel saying it wasn’t a slur…. My God, don’t these people get tired of themselves? So much of the trumped-up racial upset on the right, generally, is about language: If black people can use the N-word, why can’t we? (Even Paula Deen tried to use that as self-defense at first.) Now we’re moving on to: If the N-word is racist and forbidden, words like “cracker” should be, too. But “cracker” has never had the same power to demean, or to exile, or to sting. No social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as “crackers.”
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker too articulated the absurdity of the comparison:
For those needing a refresher course, here are just a few reasons why cracker doesn’t compare to the N-word. Cracker has never been used routinely to:
Deny a white person a seat at a lunch counter.
Systematically deny whites the right to vote.
Deny a white person a seat near the front of a bus.
Crack the skulls of peaceful white protesters marching for equality.
Blow up a church and kill four little white girls.
Need more? Didn’t think so.
Cracker may be a pejorative in some circles. It may even be used to insult a white person. But it clearly lacks the grievous, historical freight of the other.
The efforts to push back at this attempt to imagine white victimhood, to reduce racism discussions to individual prejudices or slurs, to deny white privilege through noting double standards and the assault on whiteness, is nothing new. It’s central to a post civil rights discourse, which has sought to deny the structural advantages that continue to benefit white America. Tim Wise makes this clear in his piece “Revisiting a Past Essay — Honky Wanna Cracker? Examining the Myth of Reverse Racism:”
Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form and makes anti-black and brown humor more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds and perceptions of the citizenry. White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages, be they “noble” or vicious, they’ll be seen in that light. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell’s going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating.
The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” then perhaps I’ll see the equivalence of these slurs with the more common type to which we’ve grown accustomed. When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint “Kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.”
So to be clear, comparing the “N-Word” to Cracker is like comparing ice cream to cardboard. Yet, both very much pivot on white supremacy. Yes, white supremacy grounds both the N-Word and Cracker. The history and origins of Cracker points to the way it seeks to normalize whiteness as middle-class, civility, and civilization. It, like White Trash (see here for great discussion), seeks to differentiate between those who are southern, those who are lower-classes, and those who don’t embody the desired inscription of whiteness. Cracker seeks to humanize white normativity. Matt Wray (cited here), writing about discourse surrounding white trash, argues:
Current stereotypes of white trash can be traced to a series of studies produced around the turn of the century by the US Eugenics Records Office… wherein the researchers sought to demonstrate scientifically, that large numbers of rural poor whites were “genetic defectives.” Typically, researchers conducted their studies by locating relatives who were either incarcerated or institutionalized and then racing their genealogies back to a “defective” source (often, but not always, a person of mixed blood) (2)
Given this history, Cracker must be understood not as anti-White per se but serving in the maintenance of white supremacy and the white power structure. It establishes a qualifier to those who are “white” who don’t embody the hegemonic vision of whiteness. It not only Others the “white poor,” furthering narratives that demonize and blame the poor across the color line, but humanizes whiteness as a category. The history of Cracker and the word itself is very much one of race, class, and caste, in which WHITES judged, policed, and categorized OTHER WHITES to determine who was truly WHITE and who was not quite WHITE. Rather than recycling the tried and trusted story of white victimization (notice how the debate about “N Word,” Cracker, Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, Paula Deen, etc. always in some way comes back to a delusional sense of white victimhood), we must begin to think about the structural context, one where “whites continue to swim in preference.” Cracker isn’t simply a word or a slur but a window into America’s racial history, into white supremacy.
we all know what cracker means today 20012-13 this is not the 1800 or before and doubt travon knew anything about the history of the word cracker, and zimmerman is mexican aint he ? stuff like this is what will cause riots if zimmerman walks.
what trayvon knew about the etymology of the term cracker has little to do with what the article is about. it is about the fact that the terms "cracker" and "nigger" come from white supremacists, and that the former has not been used by blacks in the same way that the latter has been used by whites. yes zimmerman is "part" mexican (whatever that means), and yes he did hunt down trayvon, shot him through the heart, and watched him die in 1-10 minutes as he bleed out. trayvon did not get what was coming to him, he was murdered in cold blood and it's pretty clear from the evidence. i hope there are non-violent protests if zimmerman gets off because that would be a proper response.
what trayvon knew about the etymology of the term cracker has little to do with what the article is about. it is about the fact that the terms "cracker" and "nigger" come from white supremacists, and that the former has not been used by blacks in the same way that the latter has been used by whites. yes zimmerman is "part" mexican (whatever that means), and yes he did hunt down trayvon, shot him through the heart, and watched him die in 1-10 minutes as he bleed out. trayvon did not get what was coming to him, he was murdered in cold blood and it's pretty clear from the evidence. i hope there are non-violent protests if zimmerman gets off because that would be a proper response.
Fuck protests! Go occupy your nearest church and pray that peace, love, and understanding beats racism, division, and this new idea that a different oppinion must be squashed. The new democrats have developed this inexcusable tactic of stating fantasy developed in their own mind as indisputable fact. Every argument that the Obama democrats make are infused with a certainty that disallows an argument from anyone or anything dispite the facts. The "n" word is used by blacks in a multitude of ways; the "c" word is used by black people too but only in a derogatory way.
Zimmerman is of Peruvian decent because his mom was born there, Martin was 100% American. Zimmerman's skin colour is lighter than Martin's; get over it and zip it. Zimmerman's neighbor was robbed in the middle of the day. He was the neighborhood watch guy. He was watching his 'hood. He saw a suspicious guy and called the cops. That is what he should have done. Why didn't Trayvon Martin wave his hand and say "hi" to the dude watching him?
Cold blood? Get real. Martin beat the shit out of Zimmerman. The first punch could have been the only punch. If Trayvon was the one screaming the word "gun" would have been repeated over and over. The one screaming was getting a serious beat down. Trayvon let inner demons control his actions that night. If he would have followed his heart and sought peace, love and understanding Zimmerman wouldn't have put a bullet through it.
The only thing I can't understand about this entire thing is why Trayvon's mom and dad are saying it was their son on that 911 recording. It is clearly not. What could they possibly gain from saying this? Wouldnt they feel worse if an innocent persons life is over too? This I don't get.
The only thing I can't understand about this entire thing is why Trayvon's mom and dad are saying it was their son on that 911 recording. It is clearly not. What could they possibly gain from saying this? Wouldnt they feel worse if an innocent persons life is over too? This I don't get.
I have long since stopped following the case, but how would you know what his voice sounds like over his parents?
what trayvon knew about the etymology of the term cracker has little to do with what the article is about. it is about the fact that the terms "cracker" and "nigger" come from white supremacists, and that the former has not been used by blacks in the same way that the latter has been used by whites. yes zimmerman is "part" mexican (whatever that means), and yes he did hunt down trayvon, shot him through the heart, and watched him die in 1-10 minutes as he bleed out. trayvon did not get what was coming to him, he was murdered in cold blood and it's pretty clear from the evidence. i hope there are non-violent protests if zimmerman gets off because that would be a proper response.
what trayvon knew about the etymology of the term cracker has little to do with what the article is about. it is about the fact that the terms "cracker" and "nigger" come from white supremacists, and that the former has not been used by blacks in the same way that the latter has been used by whites. yes zimmerman is "part" mexican (whatever that means), and yes he did hunt down trayvon, shot him through the heart, and watched him die in 1-10 minutes as he bleed out. trayvon did not get what was coming to him, he was murdered in cold blood and it's pretty clear from the evidence. i hope there are non-violent protests if zimmerman gets off because that would be a proper response.
What evidence shows he was hunted down?
Trayvon was on public property, walking with soda and candy, doing nothing illegal and some paranoid idiot with a gun ["surprise surprise" (Gomer Pile voioce)] went to rid the neighborhood of "Evil" (Dr Evil voice). Police dispatcher told him to stop following him but he continued to "hunt him down".
Zimerman's solely responsible for Trayvon being dead. Did Zimmerman get his ass kicked and did he use gun to prevent further being injured???..likely..but he initiated this confrontation and if some jerk was following me and questioning my intentions while walking down the street..I'd tell him to fk off as well.
The only thing I can't understand about this entire thing is why Trayvon's mom and dad are saying it was their son on that 911 recording. It is clearly not. What could they possibly gain from saying this? Wouldnt they feel worse if an innocent persons life is over too? This I don't get.
I have no idea who it was on that tape. But its not "clear" in either direction.
What I do question is that Zimmerman said Trayvon said "You're going to die tonight," and went for the gun, thats the moment that Zimmerman shot him dead. With all that screaming, I dont see how he heard Trayvon say that. :?
The only thing I can't understand about this entire thing is why Trayvon's mom and dad are saying it was their son on that 911 recording. It is clearly not. What could they possibly gain from saying this? Wouldnt they feel worse if an innocent persons life is over too? This I don't get.
I have no idea who it was on that tape. But its not "clear" in either direction.
What I do question is that Zimmerman said Trayvon said "You're going to die tonight," and went for the gun, thats the moment that Zimmerman shot him dead. With all that screaming, I dont see how he heard Trayvon say that. :?
who in their right mind would say "you are going to die tonight" in a fight for your life?? as i said earlier in the thread i have been in several mma fights, and you are not talking in the middle of a fight.. i think this is something zimmerman made up for dramatic effect.
if the gun was holstered in zimmerman's back right side and he is flat on his back, how does he or trayvon unholster the gun? does not seem plausible to me.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think anyone who is defending Zimmerman finds it easy to imagine being in Zimmerman's shoes but there is NO WAY you are imagining this from Martin's shoes.
Here is a kid walking through a neighborhood where demographically it sounds like he's one of a handful of minorites. It is the South where if there is still racisim it resides here. He notices he's being followed by a White Male (doesn't matter that he's half hispanic at this point). Remember so far he's guilty of NOTHING. It wasn't after curfew. He lived in the area.
The guy gets out of the car. And a fight breaks out. That is where the facts end and speculation begins. Putting myself in Martin's shoes I may not punch the guy but I'd definitely tell him to F*** Off. And 17 year old me may punch his lights out. But there is no reason I would deserve to get SHOT for that. Becuase I'm unarmed and the guy who follows me and stalks me is armed I die? Remember Martin didn't do anything wrong by being in the neighborhood and wouldn't have done anything other than go home and eat skittles had Zimmerman stayed in his car.
I don't care if he's neighborhood watch...a Cop can go to jail for shooting an innocent so a glorified mall cop DEFINITELY should be going. He assumed he had a bad guy and he didn't so why do I feel sorry for this creep???
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
who in their right mind would say "you are going to die tonight" in a fight for your life?? as i said earlier in the thread i have been in several mma fights, and you are not talking in the middle of a fight.. i think this is something zimmerman made up for dramatic effect.
if the gun was holstered in zimmerman's back right side and he is flat on his back, how does he or trayvon unholster the gun? does not seem plausible to me.
I completely agree. My guess is Trayvon punched him in the nose once or twice, Zimmerman fell back, hitting his head. I think Zimmerman was so pissed, that he got up and pulled the gun and pointed it at Trayvon. Trayvon screams, and is shot dead. I'd guess that it's not easy to pull a gun from your side and shoot someone in the chest when they're on top of you. And agaon, why is there NONE of Trayvon's blood on Zimmerman?
I think anyone who is defending Zimmerman finds it easy to imagine being in Zimmerman's shoes but there is NO WAY you are imagining this from Martin's shoes.
Here is a kid walking through a neighborhood where demographically it sounds like he's one of a handful of minorites. It is the South where if there is still racisim it resides here. He notices he's being followed by a White Male (doesn't matter that he's half hispanic at this point). Remember so far he's guilty of NOTHING. It wasn't after curfew. He lived in the area.
The guy gets out of the car. And a fight breaks out. That is where the facts end and speculation begins. Putting myself in Martin's shoes I may not punch the guy but I'd definitely tell him to F*** Off. And 17 year old me may punch his lights out. But there is no reason I would deserve to get SHOT for that. Becuase I'm unarmed and the guy who follows me and stalks me is armed I die? Remember Martin didn't do anything wrong by being in the neighborhood and wouldn't have done anything other than go home and eat skittles had Zimmerman stayed in his car.
I don't care if he's neighborhood watch...a Cop can go to jail for shooting an innocent so a glorified mall cop DEFINITELY should be going. He assumed he had a bad guy and he didn't so why do I feel sorry for this creep???
I still think Zimmerman would've never gotten out of his car if he didnt have a gun. He just seems like a pussy. That simply leads me to believe he was very willing to use it on an unarmed kid. Zimmerman is dangerous.
Trayvon was on public property, walking with soda and candy, doing nothing illegal and some paranoid idiot with a gun ["surprise surprise" (Gomer Pile voioce)] went to rid the neighborhood of "Evil" (Dr Evil voice). Police dispatcher told him to stop following him but he continued to "hunt him down".
Zimerman's solely responsible for Trayvon being dead. Did Zimmerman get his ass kicked and did he use gun to prevent further being injured???..likely..but he initiated this confrontation and if some jerk was following me and questioning my intentions while walking down the street..I'd tell him to fk off as well.
L O L... Lets stick with the facts...
1. He called the non-emergency number and he has no legal obligation to follow an "order" from the dispatcher.
2. the dispatcher only said "we don't need you to follow him". not "don't follow him".
3. Zimmerman didnt follow. He got out of his car to find the name of the street to relay to 911. that's when he got jumped by trayvon.
4. There is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman followed him
5. Even if he did follow him, it is not illegal to do so.
The main point here was, who was the initial aggressor? The answer to that question is trayvon because he punched zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, CONTINUED to fight him as he got on top of him, slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk, which lead to zimmerman having reasonable fear of great bodily harm/injury or death as the law states. it is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not meet this criteria.
The only injuries trayvon had were from the gunshot and a cut on his knuckle(s) which indicates that zimmerman didn't land a blow to him. The injuries that trayvon inflicted upon Zimmerman were NOT STOPPING.
Its also disturbing how trayvon was using racial slurs while on the phone to his friend. That shows the type of mindset he has already...
A forensic expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound indicated that he was likely on top of George Zimmerman when the neighborhood watch volunteer shot him.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds who has written and co-authored several articles and a book on the subject, said the single shot that killed the Florida teen passed through Martin's clothing as it hung 2-4 inches from his skin, indicating that Martin was over Zimmerman and leaning forward.
"If you’re lying on your back, the clothing is going to be against your chest," Di Maio testified. "So the fact that we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting."
A forensic expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound indicated that he was likely on top of George Zimmerman when the neighborhood watch volunteer shot him.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds who has written and co-authored several articles and a book on the subject, said the single shot that killed the Florida teen passed through Martin's clothing as it hung 2-4 inches from his skin, indicating that Martin was over Zimmerman and leaning forward.
"If you’re lying on your back, the clothing is going to be against your chest," Di Maio testified. "So the fact that we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting."
No one here is looking for testimony from the actual trial, Godfather. I'd rather hear people's best guesses about what they imagine probably happened so they can go apoplectic when this tool walks.
L O L... Lets stick with the facts...
1. He called the non-emergency number and he has no legal obligation to follow an "order" from the dispatcher.
...a "fact" which is irrelevant in an inquiry over whether Mr. Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. He could've been ordered by the President to pick his nose and stand on his head, but that doesn't matter. Mr. Zimmerman has claimed he acted in self-defense. He needs to articulate a threshold of evidence that meets the legal criteria of self-defense. Once that's established, the State then needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self-defense.
4. There is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman followed him
...except Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon Martin's words, and that annoying little statement from the police dispatcher saying "we don't need you to follow him."
5. Even if he did follow him, it is not illegal to do so.
Again, Zimmerman was free to do whatever he wanted. The crux of this trial is whether what he did do, legal or not, in violation of an order or a non-order, was legally excusable under the law. I cannot say this enough: the issue of whether the dispatcher could legally "order" Zimmerman to stop is a false one. The order status or non-order status is irrelevant to determining if Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
The main point here was, who was the initial aggressor? The answer to that question is trayvon because he punched zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, CONTINUED to fight him as he got on top of him, slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk, which lead to zimmerman having reasonable fear of great bodily harm/injury or death as the law states. it is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not meet this criteria.
I'll ask again: when do you testify?
It is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime charged. However, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the person raising it must offer some threshold of evidence to establish that it applies. This means that questions over what happened or who started it could actually hurt Zimmerman more than the State. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman has raised self-defense. If it's unclear that Zimmerman can establish that his actions meet the legal requirements of self-defense, then the State needs to merely establish that a kid is dead, Zimmerman pulled the trigger, and that he acted with some malice or ill intent. There's certainly been testimony to all three.
Irrelevant. Martin's mindset isn't at issue. IF Martin was "not stopping" his assault on Zimmerman (again, are you a witness?), that doesn't indicate that Martin was also the aggressor. That's just bad logic.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
who in their right mind would say "you are going to die tonight" in a fight for your life?? as i said earlier in the thread i have been in several mma fights, and you are not talking in the middle of a fight.. i think this is something zimmerman made up for dramatic effect.
if the gun was holstered in zimmerman's back right side and he is flat on his back, how does he or trayvon unholster the gun? does not seem plausible to me.
Ohhh I don't know... Maybe a THUG wanna be who is cocky/overconfident while punching someone (have you actually been in an actual fight outside of a ring? Shit-talk is one of the most common and consistent things about a street fight, especially when one is a THUG)... You can bring up all the "MMA" fights you've been in all you want, but this was a street fight, not a friendly competitor fight with referees in a ring...
Of course it doesn't seem plausible TO YOU... Just like you've never head of all of those other life or death instances where a mom will lift up a car to save her child, etc. People/Adrenaline is an amazing thing in life or dead situations, Just because you can't lay down and re-enact this with your dog does not make it implausible...
The main point here was, who was the initial aggressor? The answer to that question is trayvon because he punched zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, CONTINUED to fight him as he got on top of him, slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk, which lead to zimmerman having reasonable fear of great bodily harm/injury or death as the law states. it is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not meet this criteria.
Do you mean physical aggression? Because that's what is questionable here... Is a person getting out of a car with a loaded gun and following someone into the dark rain considered aggression?
But I do agree that Trayvon likely punched Zimmerman first. And because of a law - a subjective one at that - He can claim his life was in danger. Yup, zimmerman thought that he would DIE, so he killed Trayvon. He might walk because of that. DO you agree that Zimmerman thought he would die if he didnt shoot trayvon?
But I have to ask you one question - did you see Zimmerman's injury photos? The bloody ones? Yeah, they looked bad, right? Then did you see the ones the next day? His injuries were not bad. I've seen people get punched in the nose a lot, and i've seen peoples heads slammed against concrete. Zimmerman's injuries were'nt that bad. They appeared bad at first because of the blood, but they in no way appear life threatening to me. But thats why this case is so polarized, because some people dont put as much weight on that.. they just think Zimmerman acted within sketchy, subjective stand your ground law.
who in their right mind would say "you are going to die tonight" in a fight for your life?? as i said earlier in the thread i have been in several mma fights, and you are not talking in the middle of a fight.. i think this is something zimmerman made up for dramatic effect.
if the gun was holstered in zimmerman's back right side and he is flat on his back, how does he or trayvon unholster the gun? does not seem plausible to me.
Ohhh I don't know... Maybe a THUG wanna be who is cocky/overconfident while punching someone (have you actually been in an actual fight outside of a ring? Shit-talk is one of the most common and consistent things about a street fight, especially when one is a THUG)... You can bring up all the "MMA" fights you've been in all you want, but this was a street fight, not a friendly competitor fight with referees in a ring...
Of course it doesn't seem plausible TO YOU... Just like you've never head of all of those other life or death instances where a mom will lift up a car to save her child, etc. People/Adrenaline is an amazing thing in life or dead situations, Just because you can't lay down and re-enact this with your dog does not make it implausible...
Have you ever been in either an MMA fight or a street fight where you outweigh the other person by over 75 pounds? As someone who is 6'2 250 pounds I have fought someone much smaller than me and let me tell you if I want to get away I can get away and without shooting someone. Throw in the fact that Zimmerman has grown man strength which is a REAL thing, I don't buy his argument that he had to shoot Martin. You do and Zimmerman has to hope there are 11 more people like you on his jury.
My working theory is he shot Martin out of 50/50 being scared and being embarrassed of getting his ass kicked by a kid. I know if a teenager whupped my ass I'd be SUPER pissed and SUPER embarrased which to me are 2 motives for killing someone in the heat of the moment. Also Martin's DNA was not on the gun which meant he never reached for it and that Zimmerman did not use it to try to scare Martin off before firing.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
A forensic expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound indicated that he was likely on top of George Zimmerman when the neighborhood watch volunteer shot him.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds who has written and co-authored several articles and a book on the subject, said the single shot that killed the Florida teen passed through Martin's clothing as it hung 2-4 inches from his skin, indicating that Martin was over Zimmerman and leaning forward.
"If you’re lying on your back, the clothing is going to be against your chest," Di Maio testified. "So the fact that we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting."
Thanks for that Godfather. So his sweatshirt could've been between 2-4 inches from his chest when he was shot, indicating he was leaning forward. I'm surprised this forensics person didint consider if there was a chance that during a physical fight, that the shirt could easily sway 2 inches no matter how trayvon was standing. Or maybe that comes out in the cross-examination.
Comments
My thinking is - the outcome guilty or innoncent...they want blood.
Zimmerman is just a face now. This trial has become about whites and blacks. Haves and have nots.
These are my simple observations - based on simple history.
As for the race card you enjoy...use it all you like, i am not insulted.
White
Yellow
Red
Black
Pink
Green
Blue
Brown
I do not care ( my favorite color)
Dude is guilty... He's nervous, if it went down the way he said nothing to worry bout
He ain't John Gotti eating prosciutto and cheeses in the can, he's scarfing down slop
In all seriousness he's a pussy
I think he is out on bail. According to his lawyer "in hiding"
Got ya...looks like a different person
remember when his wife lied about their finances?? :fp:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thank you for posting this.
2014 Cincy, Detroit, Moline, & Milwaukee
2015 Central Park
2016 Lexington, Ottawa, Toronto 1 & 2, Boston 1 & 2, Chicago 1 & 2
2017 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony
2018 Seattle 1 & 2, Missoula, Chicago 1
"I'm a gansta" "creepy ass cracka" pictures of travon that show a not so innocent kid ?
it's shame that he is dead but I don't think this zimmerman guy went after travon with the intention to kill him.
Godfather.
we all know what cracker means today 20012-13 this is not the 1800 or before and doubt travon knew anything about the history of the word cracker, and zimmerman is mexican aint he ? stuff like this is what will cause riots if zimmerman walks.
Godfather.
Fuck protests! Go occupy your nearest church and pray that peace, love, and understanding beats racism, division, and this new idea that a different oppinion must be squashed. The new democrats have developed this inexcusable tactic of stating fantasy developed in their own mind as indisputable fact. Every argument that the Obama democrats make are infused with a certainty that disallows an argument from anyone or anything dispite the facts. The "n" word is used by blacks in a multitude of ways; the "c" word is used by black people too but only in a derogatory way.
Zimmerman is of Peruvian decent because his mom was born there, Martin was 100% American. Zimmerman's skin colour is lighter than Martin's; get over it and zip it. Zimmerman's neighbor was robbed in the middle of the day. He was the neighborhood watch guy. He was watching his 'hood. He saw a suspicious guy and called the cops. That is what he should have done. Why didn't Trayvon Martin wave his hand and say "hi" to the dude watching him?
Cold blood? Get real. Martin beat the shit out of Zimmerman. The first punch could have been the only punch. If Trayvon was the one screaming the word "gun" would have been repeated over and over. The one screaming was getting a serious beat down. Trayvon let inner demons control his actions that night. If he would have followed his heart and sought peace, love and understanding Zimmerman wouldn't have put a bullet through it.
I have long since stopped following the case, but how would you know what his voice sounds like over his parents?
Trayvon was on public property, walking with soda and candy, doing nothing illegal and some paranoid idiot with a gun ["surprise surprise" (Gomer Pile voioce)] went to rid the neighborhood of "Evil" (Dr Evil voice). Police dispatcher told him to stop following him but he continued to "hunt him down".
Zimerman's solely responsible for Trayvon being dead. Did Zimmerman get his ass kicked and did he use gun to prevent further being injured???..likely..but he initiated this confrontation and if some jerk was following me and questioning my intentions while walking down the street..I'd tell him to fk off as well.
I have no idea who it was on that tape. But its not "clear" in either direction.
What I do question is that Zimmerman said Trayvon said "You're going to die tonight," and went for the gun, thats the moment that Zimmerman shot him dead. With all that screaming, I dont see how he heard Trayvon say that. :?
if the gun was holstered in zimmerman's back right side and he is flat on his back, how does he or trayvon unholster the gun? does not seem plausible to me.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Here is a kid walking through a neighborhood where demographically it sounds like he's one of a handful of minorites. It is the South where if there is still racisim it resides here. He notices he's being followed by a White Male (doesn't matter that he's half hispanic at this point). Remember so far he's guilty of NOTHING. It wasn't after curfew. He lived in the area.
The guy gets out of the car. And a fight breaks out. That is where the facts end and speculation begins. Putting myself in Martin's shoes I may not punch the guy but I'd definitely tell him to F*** Off. And 17 year old me may punch his lights out. But there is no reason I would deserve to get SHOT for that. Becuase I'm unarmed and the guy who follows me and stalks me is armed I die? Remember Martin didn't do anything wrong by being in the neighborhood and wouldn't have done anything other than go home and eat skittles had Zimmerman stayed in his car.
I don't care if he's neighborhood watch...a Cop can go to jail for shooting an innocent so a glorified mall cop DEFINITELY should be going. He assumed he had a bad guy and he didn't so why do I feel sorry for this creep???
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I completely agree. My guess is Trayvon punched him in the nose once or twice, Zimmerman fell back, hitting his head. I think Zimmerman was so pissed, that he got up and pulled the gun and pointed it at Trayvon. Trayvon screams, and is shot dead. I'd guess that it's not easy to pull a gun from your side and shoot someone in the chest when they're on top of you. And agaon, why is there NONE of Trayvon's blood on Zimmerman?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
1. He called the non-emergency number and he has no legal obligation to follow an "order" from the dispatcher.
2. the dispatcher only said "we don't need you to follow him". not "don't follow him".
3. Zimmerman didnt follow. He got out of his car to find the name of the street to relay to 911. that's when he got jumped by trayvon.
4. There is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman followed him
5. Even if he did follow him, it is not illegal to do so.
The main point here was, who was the initial aggressor? The answer to that question is trayvon because he punched zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, CONTINUED to fight him as he got on top of him, slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk, which lead to zimmerman having reasonable fear of great bodily harm/injury or death as the law states. it is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not meet this criteria.
The only injuries trayvon had were from the gunshot and a cut on his knuckle(s) which indicates that zimmerman didn't land a blow to him. The injuries that trayvon inflicted upon Zimmerman were NOT STOPPING.
Its also disturbing how trayvon was using racial slurs while on the phone to his friend. That shows the type of mindset he has already...
Forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot wounds who has written and co-authored several articles and a book on the subject, said the single shot that killed the Florida teen passed through Martin's clothing as it hung 2-4 inches from his skin, indicating that Martin was over Zimmerman and leaning forward.
"If you’re lying on your back, the clothing is going to be against your chest," Di Maio testified. "So the fact that we know the clothing was two to four inches away is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/09/11 ... z2YZInwLfm
Godfather.
No one here is looking for testimony from the actual trial, Godfather. I'd rather hear people's best guesses about what they imagine probably happened so they can go apoplectic when this tool walks.
...a "fact" which is irrelevant in an inquiry over whether Mr. Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. He could've been ordered by the President to pick his nose and stand on his head, but that doesn't matter. Mr. Zimmerman has claimed he acted in self-defense. He needs to articulate a threshold of evidence that meets the legal criteria of self-defense. Once that's established, the State then needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self-defense.
Irrelevant. See above.
You sound like you were there. When do you testify? And why haven't you been called yet?
...except Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon Martin's words, and that annoying little statement from the police dispatcher saying "we don't need you to follow him."
Again, Zimmerman was free to do whatever he wanted. The crux of this trial is whether what he did do, legal or not, in violation of an order or a non-order, was legally excusable under the law. I cannot say this enough: the issue of whether the dispatcher could legally "order" Zimmerman to stop is a false one. The order status or non-order status is irrelevant to determining if Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
I'll ask again: when do you testify?
It is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime charged. However, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the person raising it must offer some threshold of evidence to establish that it applies. This means that questions over what happened or who started it could actually hurt Zimmerman more than the State. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman has raised self-defense. If it's unclear that Zimmerman can establish that his actions meet the legal requirements of self-defense, then the State needs to merely establish that a kid is dead, Zimmerman pulled the trigger, and that he acted with some malice or ill intent. There's certainly been testimony to all three.
Irrelevant. Martin's mindset isn't at issue. IF Martin was "not stopping" his assault on Zimmerman (again, are you a witness?), that doesn't indicate that Martin was also the aggressor. That's just bad logic.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Of course it doesn't seem plausible TO YOU... Just like you've never head of all of those other life or death instances where a mom will lift up a car to save her child, etc. People/Adrenaline is an amazing thing in life or dead situations, Just because you can't lay down and re-enact this with your dog does not make it implausible...
Do you mean physical aggression? Because that's what is questionable here... Is a person getting out of a car with a loaded gun and following someone into the dark rain considered aggression?
But I do agree that Trayvon likely punched Zimmerman first. And because of a law - a subjective one at that - He can claim his life was in danger. Yup, zimmerman thought that he would DIE, so he killed Trayvon. He might walk because of that. DO you agree that Zimmerman thought he would die if he didnt shoot trayvon?
But I have to ask you one question - did you see Zimmerman's injury photos? The bloody ones? Yeah, they looked bad, right? Then did you see the ones the next day? His injuries were not bad. I've seen people get punched in the nose a lot, and i've seen peoples heads slammed against concrete. Zimmerman's injuries were'nt that bad. They appeared bad at first because of the blood, but they in no way appear life threatening to me. But thats why this case is so polarized, because some people dont put as much weight on that.. they just think Zimmerman acted within sketchy, subjective stand your ground law.
Have you ever been in either an MMA fight or a street fight where you outweigh the other person by over 75 pounds? As someone who is 6'2 250 pounds I have fought someone much smaller than me and let me tell you if I want to get away I can get away and without shooting someone. Throw in the fact that Zimmerman has grown man strength which is a REAL thing, I don't buy his argument that he had to shoot Martin. You do and Zimmerman has to hope there are 11 more people like you on his jury.
My working theory is he shot Martin out of 50/50 being scared and being embarrassed of getting his ass kicked by a kid. I know if a teenager whupped my ass I'd be SUPER pissed and SUPER embarrased which to me are 2 motives for killing someone in the heat of the moment. Also Martin's DNA was not on the gun which meant he never reached for it and that Zimmerman did not use it to try to scare Martin off before firing.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Thanks for that Godfather. So his sweatshirt could've been between 2-4 inches from his chest when he was shot, indicating he was leaning forward. I'm surprised this forensics person didint consider if there was a chance that during a physical fight, that the shirt could easily sway 2 inches no matter how trayvon was standing. Or maybe that comes out in the cross-examination.