Slider_Quinn21 wrote:They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common. In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment. So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes. Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.
But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people. "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case. And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something. And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.
I haven't had time to do enough looking into the most recent cases and research every angle, so I can't really form an informed opinion about either case. But I think that in these situations, people have been bunching them all together, as you say, and it's created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere. Justified shootings are being tallied with unjustified shootings. Shootings with racial components are being bunched with shootings without racial components. Some shootings (anyone with light skin) are ignored completely in the grand tally.
The fact is, every situation is different. There is no organized war on black people, otherwise this would be entire police departments littering the streets with bodies. That isn't the case. And it's dangerous to group every situation together. It's dangerous to schedule protests and fuel anger without having the facts and the details. If something is legitimately unjustified, I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done. However, it takes work to figure these things out. Cops are held to the same laws as us, but they're not like us. We don't put our lives on the line every time we leave home in the morning. We're not asked to approach life threatening situations.
The will be justified shootings.
There will be unjustified shootings.
There will be mistakes.
There will be outright murders.
It is so important that we don't just read a headline and jump to conclusions based on emotional reactions.
2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero. Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is. If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy. And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier. And people make mistakes when they're scared.
The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community. That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified. But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers. And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.
I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership. No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter. And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter. If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace. And maybe that would calm people down.
A very real problem here is that the "leaders" that we're talking about are politicians and activists who make a living on fear and hostility. They aren't trying to keep level heads, because they benefit from paranoia. Keeping people divided makes them easier to control. Making people believe that it's "us" versus "them" keeps everyone in convenient little boxes. It makes sure that there is a "black vote" or a "female vote", even though the notion of all black people or all women thinking the same or believing the same is absurd.
President Obama could have easily helped to calm the emotions over the past few years. He could have pushed for level heads and for people to wait for information. He could have strongly condemned further violence and tried to quell the racial paranoia that has been steadily building into a literal war in the streets.
But he hasn't. Instead, he has talked out of both sides of his mouth. Supporting the outrage, but saying that he didn't support the violence (while really not *not* supporting the violence). He has done nothing to bring people together. He has only worked to keep emotions simmering, because it benefits politicians and activists is that division continues. I believe that there is leadership here, and I believe that they are getting exactly what they want from all of this. They don't care about bodies in the streets, they care about bodies in the voting booths.
And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Believing in justice isn't a crazy notion. It doesn't have to be a black vs. white thing. It doesn't have to be cops vs. citizens thing. There is no war between black people and police, there are instances of wrongdoing on both sides, but those instances do not represent a majority on either side. The environment that has been created here is making people more tense, more divided, and more likely to kill more people, both black civilians and police officers.
ireactions wrote:According to the girl that Martin called before Zimmerman killed him, she overheard the start of the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman was close enough that Martin could ask him, "What are you following me for?" at which point Zimmerman demanded, "What are you doing around here?" Which means that Zimmerman wasn't observing at a distance; he got up close, he wanted a confrontation. You make it seem like all Zimmerman did was call the police as opposed to what he did, which was call the police and then pursue Martin because Zimmerman fancied himself a police officer.
There are a couple of problems here.
First, the girlfriend's testimony is destroyed by the fact that her story changed and she lied on the stand. Now, nobody knows what to believe or what not to believe from her.
But let's say that a version of her story is true. It doesn't invalidate what Zimmerman said at all, and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman suddenly decided to change his whole attitude after hanging up with the 911 operator and started fancying himself a cowboy.
The sidewalk where the confrontation took place is T-shaped, with no street (it's off the street, with houses lining the top and sides of a sidewalk). Trayvon was spotted by Zimmerman, apparently walking closer to the buildings than was normal, and looking around suspiciously. He called 911 and tried to provide information about where he was and where Martin was going. This was off the street, mind you. The directions got a little muddled, and Zimmerman was trying to keep an eye on where the then-suspect was headed and provide that information to the 911 operator.
You say that her overhearing this conversation between the two men means that Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin closely. I disagree. The path leading to Martin's home branches off from the top of that T and heads downward in a straight line. He had a straight path to his home, where he could lock the door. He had a phone from which to call 911 for help. He had a lot of options that he didn't take.
The girlfriend doesn't say that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin, yelling "freeze!" like you see in the movies. She doesn't say that she heard Trayvon get hit. She says that she heard Trayvon start the conversation. So this would seem to support the scenario where Trayvon turns around to confront Zimmerman, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit. Wouldn't the person who initiates contact be the person who presumably "wanted a confrontation"?
And I would not call the police because I would not find it strange for an unfamiliar black teenager to be walking through the streets, even recently burglarized streets, because being unknown to me and being black are not characteristics that threaten me. The fact that Martin was high on marijuana is also not frightening to me as being high and being a teenager aren't exactly unusual circumstances and plenty of teenagers get high without breaking and entering, nor would I be bothered to call the police just because of someone's personal lifestyle decisions. I would call the police if someone were levering front doors and windows open with a crowbar.
You're making this racial, and there's no evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race at all. In fact, the only time that there appears to be the possibility of racism involved here is when Martin reportedly referred to Zimmerman as a "cracker".
And the funny part about all of this is that while people discount the recent burglaries in the area, Martin had recently been suspended for possessing some of that stolen property. He apparently fit the description of the suspect there because he probably was the suspect there! (he was caught on camera in a restricted area of the school, I believe, and painting the letters WTF on a wall. When school officials searched his locker for the paint, they found the stolen items as well as a screwdriver. It was taken into police custody, but charges were never filed because of that program that I mentioned earlier, where they tried to reduce the crime rates by dealing with issues in the school)
Of course, this part wasn't reported on all of the news shows.
There is a blurring of lines here, where people are mistaking narrative for evidence. We can't do that. We have to use the facts that we have on hand, not what we're being told by Trayvons parents and their lawyers after the fact. There is no evidence of racial motivation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman pusued Martin, or that the gun was drawn until Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed in. Zimmerman says that he didn't go for the gun until Trayvon reached for it... There's nothing to disprove that, but you can discount it if you want.
The questions are these:
Discounting all of what Zimmerman says, let's say that he approached Trayvon and asked him what he was doing in the area.
Does that give Martin the right to pin Zimmerman to the ground, delivering punch after punch (as the witness reported seeing) and slamming his head into the cement (as his wounds verify), while Zimmerman scream for help (backed up by initial police reports of what Zimmerman told them, and neighbors who heard the cries... there is even a recording of that on one of the 911 calls)?
Zimmerman could have been the biggest racist in the world. He could have been following Martin. He could have even asked him what he was doing there. Even if all of that were true (which the evidence does not support), it doesn't mean that once Zimmerman is on the ground, having his head pounded into the cement, he isn't justified in shooting Trayvon. You are not allowed to use deadly force because you don't like how someone looks or how they speak to you. You are allowed to use deadly force once there is a reasonable fear for your life. It doesn't even appear as though Zimmerman shot Martin when that threat was merely perceived. The shot was fired after life-threatening injuries were sustained, and after calling for help as neighbors retreated into their homes.
It was a justified kill. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and that's what I'm interested in. The evidence. The witnesses. The facts that we do have, and not the narrative that was created in the press afterward.
Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.