Dwyane Wade Shines As Athletes Respond to George Zimmerman Trial on Twitter

Photo via LeBron James on Twitter/Instagram (@KingJames)

Ramon Ramirez is a writer for FanSided partner BroJackson.com. For more great content, head on over to Bro Jackson and check out Ramon’s work.

I spent last month’s NBA Finals in the corner of LeBron James and the Miami Heat. Turns out, it was easy and fulfilling to root for the best basketball player in the world. In case you missed the Bro Jackson post about hot dogs on June 6, here’s the part where I used that posse cut forum to digress and endorse the Heat on the eve of the series:

“I am aggressively rooting for the Miami Heat because I think the hate that James gets—while initially warranted—has spiraled into a racist dejection of this American life. In fact, Googling ‘white people hate LeBron’ leads to a hive of think pieces about how his reprehensible Decision is justification for making the dude a totem for all things negative about young, black culture. But I adore how the Heat have become a symbol for strength and unity in the black community–at least, during my 2010-2013 tenure in Washington, D.C.–in light of the Trayvon Martin Instagram photo. Even though it means we have to revert to the ‘us vs. them’ mentality that permeates racial lines in this country. Like you know how people criticize Friends for not having prominent minorities? I think the argument fails to respect how easy it is/was to be in a city like New York and avoid having to interact with other races. A friend of mine from Chicago calls his town ‘the salad bar.’ Especially for people that move to big cities after getting a college diploma. It’s so easy to not deal with black people, you just have to put in a little bit of effort.”

I think that the Heat were on a Mexico City ’68 political tip. Their Martin Instagram picture was stunning because it was posted on the team’s most marketable face’s personal account (James’); and it was a united team political statement made just a generation after Michael Jordan famously said that he keeps potentially divisive opinions to himself because “Republicans buy sneakers too.”

Late Saturday, after the biggest civil rights-related case since Rodney King, another Heat headliner took to Twitter and prominently commented. Dwyane Wade did so with full knowledge that his digital audience included his employers, endorsement dealmakers, and the kids that idolize him because of an other-worldly ability to orchestrate a fast break.

 

 

Wade’s tweets didn’t wax philosophical or play arm chair attorney. They offered honest reactions, and even had the grace to solicit dissent. The backlash reaction was more or less the same: stick to entertaining me as an athlete and keep the opinions to your dinner table.

My favorite Jay-Z diatribe of his rock solid new album Magna Carta… Holy Grail is when he raps about Muhammad Ali and how the greatest athlete of the 20th Century was told to rumble but be humble and then Jay connects that sentiment to why he plans to “shine like a trillion watts.” “America tried to emasculate the greats,” he adds.

Thank God for social media. In 1968, a James Brown concert was televised at the 11th hour and this helped quell the social unrest in the streets of Boston on the night that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Twenty-one years ago, the Rodney King verdict led to violent riots in Los Angeles. Saturday, the conversation shifted to Facebook and Twitter, and it made for sobering, vital discourse between two Americas. No social media-related injuries were reported.

There were people upset about the George Zimmerman verdict and there were people happy about it. Both camps expressed themselves accordingly and with conviction. What bothered me: Sports writers and thinkers that I follow on Twitter, rejecting the notion of expression with dismissive “here come the NFL players” tweets. The notion that the opinions of athletes belong off these digital ethers–that these users can very easily ignore and even combat with aggressive ideological reinforcement—is poisonous.

Marcus Vick and JA Rule tied their arguments to non-sequiturs: Jail time is dished out because of dogs or owning guns, but not for the taking of a human life? Adrian Peterson stressed that the responsibility of a neighborhood watch is to watch. Roddy White and Victor Cruz puffed their chests in anger. Torrey Smith played calming big brother. Javale McGee dispensed Capslocked paranoia. Marquise Goodwin echoed the fears of young, black men in Florida. The whole display was healthy.

As fans, we’ve all seen our favorite players tweet dumbass shit. And sure, it makes us root for them a little less. It’s normal to tie in personal biases with what we like to see on the field of play. But as fans, we should be thankful that the men and women we root for are people with opinions who aren’t afraid to shine like a trillion watts.

Correction: The original version of this article misquoted Michael Jordan as saying “white people” buy sneakers too. Fansided regrets the error.

Topics: Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat

Want more from FanSided?  
Subscribe to FanSided Daily for your morning fix. Enter your email and stay in the know.
  • JohnGalt

    Dwade, I love you as a player and a peerson, but Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how our legal system works.

  • Michael Ma

    The impact of an Athlete’s voice can be so powerful. Hopefully, they will continue to speak up.

    • Patrick Doe

      Why? To hear more threats coming from uneducated people? (Roddy White, Victor Cruz) only later do they apologize for their ignorant comments. Why don’t they care about all the other young black men being killed by their own kind if they really care so much? Because they’re racists themselves. So yea go ahead keep saying your stupid comments and let your true colors show

      • Jah

        …….your ignorance is racist too.

        • Patrick Doe

          Michael Ma wants to agree with the racist black man because he’s scared to be called a racist himself. You both are a joke and Jah your comments are as racist as they come so you would actually be the one that would get their ass beat. Not “the white man” like u previously mentioned.

      • Michael Ma

        Exactly, you’re ignorance just spoke for itself. Not all athletes voices will be rational, or logical, just like in society, so to say that you will be hearing “more threats coming from uneducated people” is a HUGE generalization, misunderstanding, and complete bias.

        How can you say that they don’t care about all the other young black men being killed “by their own kind” when hundreds of black athletes donate their time to go to local communities and unprivileged neighborhoods to interact with the youth, to teach them life lessons, to stay out of trouble. These are athletes we are talking about, who are busy 24/7, constantly on the go, and yet, they give their time to spend time with the younger generation in hopes of them not choosing the wrong path. I don’t know too many CEO’s, company presidents, or business owners who take TIME, and not money to give back to communities.

        As for as them being racist? It’s kind of hard to be racist or show racism when you are a minority in society, or industry. Roddy White and Victor Cruz are both top level receivers, who have to power to force a trade to any team they want to at the moment. Yet, they still play on teams that has a white coach, white GM, etc, so I have no idea what you mean when you say “they’re racists themselves” when they have the power to act on their racism, if they were indeed racist.

  • schmak01

    If he wants to make this ‘make sense’ to his boys, tell them to run home if someone is following you and call 911, don’t confront the stranger. Done.

    • Anthony Rutledge

      How then will he explain the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws to his sons?

      • schmak01

        The same way any responsible parent does in a CHL state, or any state really. Tell your kids to not start fights with strangers. If you find yourself with an aggressor, walk or run away. Its not cowardice. My father always told me you never know what the other person is holding. Knife, Gun, doesn’t matter. Don’t start fights with people you don’t know. Alas common sense is a rare commodity these days.

        • Anthony Rutledge

          “Tell your kids to not start fights with strangers.” I would think telling your kinds not to start fights at all would be the proper guidance, followed by “people will do things to bait you, but don’t take the bait. Some kids never learn to mind their own business, to or do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

          • schmak01

            You’re 100% correct there. Travon’s parents might have coached him the same, but he chose to ignore that advice. Both parties acted stupidly, but the best you can do is explain things to your kids logically and point out your actions have consequences. Unfortunately both their actions resulted in fatal consequences. For stand your ground though, always assume the other person has a gun. Always. Even if you aren’t looking for a fight.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            You’re 100% correct there. Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman should have coached him about being neighborly and seeing the humanity in people first. Mr. Zimmerman’s phone call was a classic case of judging a book by its cover. There is no video of what happened behind the houses, so we cannot know if both parties acted stupidly, give that both had the right to be there, defend themselves, and stand their ground. I cannot support blaming both of them without evidence that both of them acted stupidly. I know that the result of this whole situation is stupid. Most people, even if they disagree on some things, would agree about that, given the totality of the circumstances (not one moment in time, which was what the jury had to decide on). Had Mr. Zimmerman ” always assume[d] the other person has[had] a gun,” I guess he would have never left his truck.

  • Jah

    So, we got White people pointing out that the prosecution didn’t prove their case as if the defense did?? Nevermind the glaring FACTS Zimmerman LEFT his truck to pursue Martin when he was TOLD NOT TO BY THE DISPATCHER. Had he kept his racist butt in the truck and leave the little kid alone, nothing would have happened.

    However, White people can’t see that. They have to believe the Black kid did something wrong just because he was Black.

    White people will never look at a case from the beginning to see that this racist had all the signs of hate for Blacks. White people ignore that and instead, focus further down to the point when Martin defended himself (which he had every right to do), and then goes, “ah huh….see, the Black kid started it.”

    This is the way of thinking for most White Americans. They won’t start believing anything until the point where a Black dude look like he did wrong.

    I’m sure if a redneck followed me down a street, stalked me and finally confronted me in a hostile manner, White people will totally ignore that as insignificant. And if provoked, and I defend myself from this racist stranger, White people see that as wrong on my part, therefore I am guilty and the racist redneck did absolutely nothing wrong except followed me, stalked me, confront me and then provoked me as a stranger I never seen in my life.

    With an attitude like that from most White Americans, God must act to save His Chosen People. The time of the Gentile Nations (White People!!) should be nearing it’s end!

    Six White jurors and all from that racist-ass town, Sanford? Did you think they will see Blacks in the fair light? Hell no. How could they….they live separate from Blacks and make no efforts toward race relation.

    • Shawn McDonald

      Where were you when OJ was unjustly acquitted? I bet Wade wasn’t ‘stunned’ or ‘Saddened as a son’ by the event. So it was OK for that blatant 1st degree murderer to be set free, but a man who was given the same benefit of the doubt is acquitted under the same justice system yet can be condemned and labeled a racist is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.
      When you can answer why it’s ok for a person to confront and fight a total stranger, then you’ll understand why a jury of people not like you came to the understanding that this was not 2nd degree murder. The only problem here is there are no winners, only losers. A 17 yr old kid died, that a 29 yr old man lives with, and a whole mass of ignorant fools debates with rose colored glasses.

      • Jah

        Let’s get something straight. If you approach me in a hostile manner and at least a feet in front of me, and if it feels like you trying to hurt me, TRUST ME, I will be BEAT YOUR MOTHERFUCKING ASS, PUNK!

        You don’t approach a Black man like that especially with the history of racism among White people. Though Zimmerman is a Latino, he falls under your European “RACIST” family tree. The fact still stands and the evidence is still there: Zimmerman got out of his truck and pursued Trayvon Martin. This was not proper protocol as a Neighborhood Watchman. Right or wrong?? Let me see you give me an honest answer if it was right for Zimmerman to get out of that truck and confronted Martin? This isn’t cop and robbery, asshole. Zimmerman, during his phone conservation with the Dispatcher, was telling the Dispatcher, “I HATE these punks. They always get away.”

        Now, tell me if this racist asshole was in the right frame of mind to be confronting somebody like he’s a Lawman?? Of course you won’t because to admit to that would be defending Blacks and your mindset can’t precieve that the Black kid did nothing wrong. A 17 year old kid with skittles and ice tea just walking to his father’s girlfriend house.

        If Martin was White, your ignorant ass would see that CLEARLY. However, he’s Black, you can’t see it. Your kind is inherently racist, to the bones! No sense in arguing this with you. God don’t sleep but when the time comes for the Gentile rule to end, you all will be sorry for the shit you have perpetrated on Blacks for nearly 400 years. There is no way you’d be found innocent and upright. You been guilty since your racist existence out of the Caucasus Mountain…..named for White People: Cacasians. Even the mountains will testify against you to God. Fucking parasites.

        As far as O.J. I’m one of MANY Blacks that believe O.J. did it, indirectly or directly. Wrong is wrong. O.J. was wrong. He killed that young lady.

        See, I don’t wear racist-color glasses like most Whites do. If you in the wrong, you wrong. Zimmerman was in the wrong! Thoroughly! Anybody can see that but can White people? Nope. And we know why. Even America’s history knows why.

        • Shawn McDonald

          You prove my point with your opening statement. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the meaning of racism, but you certainly embody it. Your attitude is less than desirable and completely on the level of why such sentiments exist today. Keep fighting the wrong fight friend, because, to you, only white folks can be racist.

          • Jah

            My opening statement is justified in light of racism by White people since 1816 when the first African slave was documented. Who are to judge me to? To your own people?? Fella, you have much to learn as far as Black People and Who We Really Are. I don’t think you understand just who Black people are in America and why oppression, racism and discrimination is practiced against us with no end in sight.

            You think the actions by Whites will go unpunished? Read yoir bible—– even if you dont believe in it. Read: Deut. 28: 15-68 and put it together and realize who, in America, fits those scriptures. Hint: it’s not White People.

            When you correctly guess who, then will you begin to understand how your existence was brought forth to oppress my people for the breaking of our Covenant with the Most High. I don’t want to spoil it for you. I want you to read it for yourself and know that the time is nigh for the end of the Gentile rule. Guess who the gentile nations are? Hint: Genesis 10:1. Read it through. There’s Ham, Shem and Japheth. Ham descendants are Africans (not the Negros). Shem descendants are Black-Asiatics (Negroes). Japheth……well, you can guess that.

            So, regardless what you think I embodies, my anger is justified. The anger of Black Americans is justified. It is, collectively, a “cry to heaven.” Understand, Heathen?

            You do this to God’s Chosen People……not those fake Israelis i Iraeal. No. A portion of the Chosen People are here in America.

            Enough of that, you start to see why the hate from Whites to Blacks is totally prophecized and there will be punishment at the end to the Oppressor nations. The Bible don’t lie.

            Again, our anger at you, is justified. Your anger, hate and racism IS NOT.

            Understand?

          • Guest

            Hey Genius, there were 5 whites on the derby. The 6th was hispanic. Also, the defendant was the same amount of white as Obama. If Zimmerman is white then so is the President. Your call, you can’t have it both ways.

          • Jah

            Where was the Black jurors?? Like….5 Blacks and 1 White or Latino?????

          • Shawn McDonald

            You really don’t know how the justice system works do you? Only what you’ve heard, I have my doubts that you would actually look up how your local justice system works. A jury of your peers is not a jury of people who will likely judge with bias. This isn’t Iran, on Ramadan, with a woman on trial for exposing her ankles.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Is that to say that a jury is made up of people without bias? You may want to examine what you are saying.

          • Shawn McDonald

            Is that to say you cannot accept the truth?

            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Shawn McDonald

            Not that you read the post, you just like to insert irrelevant rhetoric instead of addressing the point.

          • Unreal

            Hey Genius, there were 5 whites on the jury. The 6th was hispanic. Also, the defendant is the same amount of white as Obama. If Zimmerman is white then so is the President. Your call, you can’t have it both ways.

          • Jah

            Obama’s father was an African. His mother, Irish. Zimmerman’s mother is part of the European family tree. His father is White.

            Zimmerman has alabaster skin, straight hair, thin lips and identify with far-right views. Even want to be viewed as White. Just like his father and mother.

            Obama has no alabaster skin. No straight hair and doesn’t identify with Whites. He consider himself Black, look black and has melanin like any other Black despite his mother being White. The admixture of Obama’s bi-racial complex is strongly Black-Americans. The admixture of Zimmerman’s bi-racial complex is strongly European. Nice try.

          • Shawn McDonald

            When did Ireland drop from Europe? So you’re saying Zimmerman is more European than Obama? BTW, GZ doesn’t identify with Whites, he’s a self described Hispanic. Just so we’re clear, alabaster is pretty much the epitome of white while translucent gypsum looks like the color of a light bulb. So no he doesn’t have alabaster skin, but neither does Obama, at least you show some accuracy in your ramblings.

            Do you have a DNA sample of the president?!? Not sure how you can analyze the level of melanin one black person has compared to someone who is half-white. I’m guessing he doesn’t have straight hair because of his Irish background? I’m sure his mother is quite proud of him despite the color of his skin. The only reason he strongly identifies with black America is for your vote, since we are writing in superlatives.

            The admixture of your sanity is of a bi-polar complex and is strongly psychotic. Nice try.

          • Chaz Lesniewicz

            Zim was a Democrat and mentored two black youths……

          • jomodamusicman

            HEY Fool: Only an idiot, would compare Zimmerman who has a White German father and a mother who is mixed with White and Indian from Peru and he also looks as white as any white person in that court room, now with Obama who had a Black African Father with White Mother and besides Obama’s complexion looks just like 85% of Blacks in America. Z-man recognizes himself as white and only become Hispanic to avoid racial hatred crime

          • Unreal

            Also, where’s the outrage for the black on black crimes? Where’s the outrage for the hispanic on hispanic crimes? It’s only an outrage when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton think they can get some air time out of the deal. “Blah blah blah, white devil, white devil, blah blah”

            Why no protests for the 17 year old black male that was found with a bullet wound to the head that was put there by another black man?

          • Jah

            Where was you when a Black man put a bullet in another Black man’s head??? Was you secretly happy about it? Racist.

          • Patrick Doe

            “Where was you” enough said. You’re an idiot. You lost all credibility

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Where was the 911 call that proceeded the act you are referring to?

          • Shawn McDonald

            No I have no understanding of how a person as long winded as yourself doesn’t do a little critical thinking and move past all this hate speech. Chosen people, Bible verses, calling me a racist will not cover up the fact that you are judging everyone else by the color of their skin. That makes you a racist. Not a surprise to most here, but something you fail to grasp. For every one Bible verse you put forth I can put forth a counter verse. The Bible is full varying interpretations, much of which was not meant for us to completely understand, thus Revelations. You must be a Profit or a Messiah to have full understanding of the Bible and its’ passages. You anger justifies no one but yourself. Don’t presume to speak for all those who would call themselves Black, Asian, Hispanic, White, or other to your side of a very disturbing outlook on the world. Luckily an individual like yourself has a hard time procreating so the damage will be contained with yourself…at least one can hope.

          • Shawn McDonald

            Just so we’re clear, slavery is as old as prostitution and is still happening in some parts of the world. There hasn’t been slavery in these united states since 1865, the end of the Civil War, encase you were unaware.

          • erniecp2

            you are so full of crap its running out of your mouth. You don’t know anything about slavery or you would know it was the black man who sold his own kind. You walk in my neighborhood late at night with a hood on and I promise you will be confronted and the person confronting you will most likely be armed. You also will not beat anybodys ass but will most likely be shot. It wont matter what race you are either.

          • Jah

            If I walk in your neighborhood with a hood on, day or night, you won’t do nothing except watch me pass on by. That’s a fact.

            As far as me learning my history, you need to learn real history and not that watered down, American version…. full of eurocentric lies.

            African kings did not sell their “own” in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. They didn’t have the infrastructure to pull something like that off. They were tribal people and had no concept of a large scale enterprise such as the Slave Trade.

            African kings only gave up the exiles of the Rome/Jew war of 66 A.D. to 70A.D. Those were Black Hebrews of the Tribe of Yahuda (Judah)…..as prophecized in Revelation. Read it.

            It was 1400 years after the Rome/Jew war did the Arabs and Spainairds assembled the Transatlantic Slave Trade. It was the Whites and White Jews who “bought” slaves and slaved them in America, the Americas and the Caribbean Islands. The true Children of Israel. Understand?

            The White man promised the African kings that they would return them after their labor but the White Man are masterful Lairs as history would attest.

            So, no…..Africans did not sell their own. They gave up the Black Hebrews who was exile out of their own land, Israel because of the breaking of the Covenant by their forefathers, with Yah (God). Again, understand Heathen???

          • erniecp2

            I just threw you in the trash. piss off loser

          • Jah

            Lol@ “piss off Loser.” I already know you’re a weak ass, sheltered White boy that never been around Blacks to know you can get KNOCKED THE FUCK OUT, DUMB TRAILER TRASH RACIST.

            Should be happy our path haven’t crossed, racist PUNK!

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Jah, how can anyone take you seriously taking like that? Isn’t there anything constructive that you could say?

          • Lama

            erniecp2 Where do you live? Write it down. I’m coming. And I’m bringing HELL with me. Oh and I’m white. But I’ll still happily stomp your ass when you come out asking me anything.

        • Chaz Lesniewicz

          Wow… Rasmussen poll shows that blacks are viewed as most raciest in America… I wonder why with dumb fools like you….

          • Jah

            Dumb inbred like you too stupid to realize Rasmussen is a far-right leaning poll taker. Of course, being so dumb, you’d think they asked both Liberals and Republicans than their own far-right, extreme loons. The same kind of debauchery that tainted the Juror selection of 5 racist-ass White women that call themselves “mothers.” Please! Do the world a favor and extinct. The sooner your racist kind is gone off the face of the earth, the better it’d be for the U.S. and the rest of the world. And Im neither Republican nor Democrat.

          • Paul

            Jah, the prosecution agreed to the jury as well as the defense… why would they allow, to quote you, “5 racist-ass White women” to be on the jury, if they believed that race would be a factor in the trial and therefore the verdict? The prosecution would have had every right during the jury selection process to poll these women for possible racist views and dismiss them. Unless you are suggesting the prosecution and judge were in on some kind of conspiracy…

          • Jah

            That’s the element of surprise now, isn’t it? Citizens around the country was shocked to their core at the verdict. Is Sanford citizens even competent to stand trial as jurors? The verdict made the statement that Zimmerman was totally innocent. Not one thing he did was wrong. In face of the hard concrete evidence that this 17 year old kid die with nothing but skittles and ice tea, is a complete failure of the Justice System.

            It stand to reason, in the aftermath of the verdict that, Sanford’s White citizens are more racist than anything of being fair-minded and impartial. I’m sure the prosecution was bewildered as the rest of the world except the minority numbers of WHITE RACISTS around the country.

            The general consensus among U.S. citizens find Zimmerman to be guilty or to be charged with manslaughter. However, to say he’s totally “innocent” ??? Smh.

            Keep in mind, this isn’t the first brush of stupidity by racist-ass White jurors. They made questionable verdicts like this in the Casey Anthony trial. It’s something with these White Floridian women —— they’re probably the biggest kept-secret of pure Racist White Trash.

          • Paul

            you didn’t really answer my question… but i figured you wouldn’t. Isn’t saying that all Floridian white women are, again to quote you, “racist right trash,” a racist statement in itself. Racism is defined as a belief that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior. Jah, your above statement fits that definition. You by the definition, are racist. Also, it’s “citizens around the country WERE shocked to their core at the verdict.” And Perhaps they were, but those of us who watched the entirety of the trial, myself included, were not shocked. By the way, some of the jurors I believe weren’t even from Sanford, they were from other parts of the country. That happens in a high profile case like this. So now you are calling many jury pools incompetent… seems pretty convenient for your reasonings if you ask me.

          • Hack142

            no voting rights?

          • Chaz Lesniewicz

            You’re a Democrat…… Rasmussen is considered the best pollster working today..

      • Anthony Rutledge

        No, you misunderstand. O.J. did not call 911 first and inflame his supposed action beyond the bad act that it was. Had Zimmerman never said what he said, the reaction to this verdict would be completely different. The parents might still be upset, but it would not be a national issue. Remember, O.J. was found not guilty of murder, but was found responsible for the wrongful death of NBS and RG in a civil trial. O.J. never claimed self-defense.

        • Shawn McDonald

          Your point isn’t on the level. The media inflamed this to the national level not his non emergency call, he didn’t call 911. OJ murdered his wife and her friend. There were no protests funded by the DoJ at his trial, there was a slow ass police chase when he resisted arrest. Forgot about that though, didn’t you. NBC decided to chop up his call to make GZ sound racist if that’s what you are referring to. Otherwise he gave sworn statements believing he was defending himself. The media and this corrupt administration decided to push the race card. Just so you know, a civil conviction has the burden of proof at 51% unlike criminal trails. When GZ gets immunity from civil trails he will then be completely exonerated.
          Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Anthony Rutledge

            I suppose you’ll will blame the Freedom of Information Act next? People have to accept or reject information. The media cannot make people take independent action. The DoJ did not need to do an investigation as there was no need to discover anything else about the trial. There wasn’t a civil rights issue, as defined by statute. Of course, that verdict was morally wrong. I know it was a NE call, 911 is just more common sense though. Look, O.J. did not call anyone say a bunch of inflammatory stuff before killing NBS and RG. I mean, did he? O.J. was not charged with resiting arrest, probably because he was not driving the Bronco. NBC is not the only station out there, and the whole recording is worse. Zimmerman’s bad assumptions (judging a book by its cover) are the real race cards here.

          • Shawn McDonald

            He was a neighborhood watch captain. He was doing what he thought was morally right. To watch and report. You obviously haven’t read the phone call transcript. He was in no way being a bigot or racist. He seemed to be upset over folks committing crimes in his hood. He gave a description from answering questions from the dispatcher. Not inflaming the situation. He voiced his option about the situation. I do believe he’s covered there on some document signed by a bunch of old guys. Trying to say a NEC was the determining factor is pure rhetoric on your part. Its certainly not based on fact, unlike need outlets jumping on a non racial case and inserting white in front of Hispanic to make to create a story. We have Dr Sues for make believe. OJ may not have been driving but he certainly was running taxi style. That’s resisting arrest no matter how you dice it. More power to him anyway, my comparison was one of showing similarity. The justice system is setup in favor of the dependent to protect them from wrongful persecution. The OJ’s and Casey Anthony’s of this world benefit from shoddy prosecution. While the Zimmerman’s have to sit their quietly while the gov tries to railroad him at every step on the way. Like I said before, OJ didn’t have the DoJ funding protest against him, seem like a precedence being made to me
            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Mr. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch liaison whose main role was simply to coordinate things locally with block captains beneath him, and to stream line communication with the Sanford police representative (who testified a the trial). In society, what is morally right cannot be judged by an individual exclusively inside his or her own mind. Actions of men and women must comport with expectations of citizenship, legal rights, law (natural and statutory), and fair treatment of all beings in the human community in which they are a part of. Civility and basics, Mr. McDonald. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Judge people by the content of their character. Bigotry and racism are not just men and women riding horses and wearing white sheets. People are sophisticated and intelligent enough not to be directly overt about their most fundamental views on those they see as being “the other.” Crime in neighborhood is not a reason to forget civility and basics. Some of his descriptions include unfounded opinions about Mr. Martin, including being associated with as_holes that “always get away” and a “f_cking punk.” Why do you suppose he said these things about someone he did not know if some form of bigotry, bias, prejudice, or racism did not exist in him somewhere? I would say Mr. Zimmerman inflamed the situation by the tenor of his discourse. Why would a former alter boy say such naughty things about someone he did not know? You can drop the OJ thing, because we all know he did it or he was right there when it happened. O.J. did not have people contributing to a defense fund. I think bringing O.J. in to this is comparing apples to oranges. I could be mistaken, but at least there was at least one white person on O.J.’s jury.

          • Shawn McDonald

            He didn’t commit 2nd degree murder. His life was threatened which is why this isn’t manslaughter. His words are beholden only to him, unless you are prepared to subject TM to his ‘creepy a_s cracker’ line as words of bigotry. Civility is lost on anyone who would feel threatened, by both parties. You, however seem to only take GZ’s action into consideration. TM died a very sad and unfortunate death, his killer is protected from prosecution from the facts as we know it. We will never no intent, or mentality of either party. We will never truly know how the fight started. We do know he is innocent of 2nd degree murder by a jury of his peers.
            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Correction, he was not convicted of 2nd degree murder. How do you know that Mr. Martin’s life was not threatened? You don’t. No one saw the entire event (it could have started with a Zimmerman push, shove, tackle, or grab), but we do know Mr. Zimmerman had the gun all along. Mr. Martin was under duress, which is why he ran away. Had Mr. Zimmerman simply introduced himself as being part of the neighborhood watch, he never would have had to call the authorities. What is wrong with being nice to people in your neighborhood? You’re not advocating intentionally following people who are doing nothing illegal, in the dark, with a gun, are you? That might be seen as an irrational act. Irrational people should not carry firearms. I wonder what Mr. Zimmerman’s psychologist might say about Mr. Zimmerman’s behavior that night. I’m betting it would sound something like Mr. Zimmerman was “paranoid” or “delusional” that night. Are you saying that a 11 year old girl would have no cause to fear a man staring at her at night and that also started trailing in a car? Hummmmm. That her civility would have been lost had she decided to run, even though she would have no legal or moral obligation to do so? No. I say that there is no way to know what happened behind the houses because there is no video. Mr. Zimmerman went out of his way to follow Mr. Martin. Remember, Mr. Zimmerman was supposedly on his way to Target. Correction, Mr..Zimmerman is protected because he killed his opponent first, that is all. He had more education and life experience than Mr. Martin, and he knew that the survivor can claim self-defense, even if the survivor may (and I do mean may) have started it. Mr. Zimmerman is protected because of deficiencies in the legal system. The verdict only represents a conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense at the moment the gun was fired, not that the entire circumstance represents self-defense. Hopefully, you can understand the difference. Mr. Zimmerman’s mentality about the situation will be known for as long as people have ears. He told the NE dispatcher that “these as_holes always get away” ….”fucking punks.” Seems that Mr.Zimmerman was not happy to see Mr. Martin at all and was predisposed to cast Mr. Martin in a negative light. Civility?Community? Humannity? George Zimmerman may not know the meanings of those words, based on the totality of his actions. Juries are composed of human beings, they are not saints. The verdict is legally correct, but only about one moment, not the totality of the circumstance. Mr. Zimmerman is free to live, if he can find a life worth living. Maybe Fox News or the NRA will give him a gig.

          • Shawn McDonald

            So you completely discount my points by inserting your own opinion on how the events transpired. Nice. I’ll say again, we will never know how the events unfolded. We do know he was exonerated, and since he is innocent until proven guilty…wait so that means he’s innocent or a similar definition…not guilty. Have fun contradicting yourself. I’m done with this idle chatter.
            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Anthony Rutledge

            I addressed your points. Read carefully. I said that Mr. Martin was under duress before he started running. That probably accounts for his use of language. Sociologically, Mr. Martin (as is Paula Dean) is a product of his environment (the south). Had Mr. Zimmerman while in his car said, “Hey there young man. How are you doing tonight?” in a friendly tone (instead of eyeballing him for an extend period of time), I doubt Mr. Martin’s supposed description of Mr. Zimmerman would have been “creepy” or “cr_cker.” Makes sense, right? Civility, Mr. MacDonald. Civility. Yet, I suppose you discount Mr. Zimmerman referring to Mr. Martin as an “as_hole” and “f_cking punk” for no reason whatsoever. I don’t like both of their language, but Mr. Zimmerman’s language came before he decided to follow Mr. Martin, which was paranoid, delusional, and totally unnecessary in my opinion. Tell me when I’m not being fair, Mr. McDonald. Remember, even though there was crime in Mr. Zimmerman’s neighborhood, Mr. Zimmerman did not report anything illegal to the dispatcher. Innocent until proved guilty. Oops! I guess Mr. Zimmerman forgot about that.

            The only events that matter, legally, are what happened behind the houses, and nobody knows what happened because there is no video (with audio). That’s not inserting my opinions about how events transpired. That’s being fair, objective, and balanced. Please, feel free to right my ship by telling me exactly what happened. Tell me when I’m not being fair, Mr. McDonald. Is it important for you to see Mr. Zimmerman as a victim? Why is that? I can start a fight without leaving an injury on someone simply by trying to grab or shove them. The fact that Mr. Zimmerman has injuries only means that, in this context, that he was in an altercation, not that someone else started it. Mr. Martin could have blocked a Zimmerman attempt at a strike. In short, anything could have happened behind the houses. It’s an unknown. Until there is a video with audio, no one will know what happened for certain.

            Mr. Zimmerman was not exonerated. He was found not guilty based on the single, solitary moment the gun was fired. That’s it. The verdict is not commentary on whether Mr. Zimmerman started the fight or not. Hopefully, you can understand the difference between a single, solitary moment and complete exoneration.

            Innocent was what Mr. Martin was walking home, but I suppose Mr. Zimmerman saw him as being closer to guilty than innocent. How ironic it is that Mr. Zimmerman, with his education in criminal justice, could not first give Mr. Martin the benefit of the doubt. Civility, humanity, and good citizenship. Fair treatment of your fellow man. These are the moral failings of George Zimmerman that night. I see you have run out of points to make.

            Victory!

          • Shawn McDonald

            You don’t get victory, you prove your ignorance. You are a racist through and through, and no better than the previous poster Jah. You are the lowest form of debater, the sophist. The truth isn’t relevant to you only victory.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Ad hominen attacks? So soon?

            Complete and utter victory!

          • Shawn McDonald

            My attacks?!? Calling a spade a spade is not an ad hominine. Whatever fits the sophist I guess. Like I said, you care about winning not about truth. Total victory is only a self declaration made by those who never win.
            Sent from my Windows Phone

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Jah debates me higher up (I think). I don’t think your claim can hold up if you read the entirety of it.

          • Shawn McDonald

            Jah doesn’t debate, that’s the point you fail to grasp. You two share this quality.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            In that case, you must share it too.

          • Shawn McDonald

            Im certainly not infallible.

            Sent from my Windows Phone

    • Unreal

      Innocent until proven guilty. It’s on the prosecution to prove guilt. That’s kind of how the system works. Brilliant!

      • Earl Gaines

        The system sucks!

    • Chaz Lesniewicz

      Wow… You are a fool…

    • Hack142

      No law against getting out of your truck to follow a suspicious individual in a community that had its share of thefts.

      • Anthony Rutledge

        I would encourage you to research the various theories of law. What you really mean is that there is no statutory law in Florida against getting out of your truck to follow someone you think is suspicious (in your mind). In the natural law, Mr. Zimmerman has grossly violated a couple of laws: “live and let let” and “don’t judge a book by its cover.”

    • Hack142

      No proof of racism except by the deceased….get your facts straight

      • Anthony Rutledge

        Racism is inferred by Mr. Zimmerman judging a book by its cover too. But Mr. Martin did not want to follow Mr. Zimmerman. That should tell you something about Mr. Zimmerman right there.

    • Anthony Rutledge

      Again, you should attempt to make your argument without using offense language against others. Organize your thoughts and make your case. You do not need to attack other people to make a sound, logical argument. The dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that.” Check your facts and make an argument that does not insult others. Otherwise, people tend to discount your argument as being emotional and unnecessarily biased.

  • Hack142

    How do you explain any murders to your boys? The same applies here.

    Key ?-why have there been no more home break ins at this subdivision since this incident?

    • bawgs

      Right and come to think of it, there haven’t been any home invasions in my neighborhood (in Ohio) since Trayvon was killed, he must’ve been responsible for those too. And I don’t think Wade was wondering how to explain murder to his children so much as the lack of justice for a slain black teenager. Wow, just wow.

      • Hack142

        Sounds like someone has a tuff time with facts and wants to cloud the issue with Ohio? Wow
        How do you explain the 10 slain blacks in Chicago last weekend and no justice?

        • Anthony Rutledge

          In how many of those ten instances of killing did someone call 911 first and assume that the victim was up to no good based on their appearance.

          • Hack142

            We wont know because most will never see the courtroom. There was no evidence of racial nature by Z, only Martin so whats your point.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Your belief, your opinion, that “there was no evidence of [a] racial nature” by Mr. Zimmerman deserves to be examined. Is it necessary to make racial slurs to treat someone in a way that makes their race super important in regards to the way you treat them? Inferences and other gambits are what people use to mask their true nature. We are not in a court of law here, Mr. Hack142. Mr. Zimmerman’s motivations to call the police [911] on Mr. Martin, regardless of other crimes that occurred in his neighborhood, are suspect, given that Zimmerman’s call provides no evidence that Mr. Martin was doing anything illegal. Hence, when Mr. Martin runs away, Zimmerman’s moral obligation should have been to leave Mr. Martin alone. It is reasonably inferred that Mr. Zimmerman, based on who he saw, what he saw, and what he said, concluded that Mr. Martin was ‘up to no good,” even though he had no evidence.

          • Hack142

            Sorry Tony that you have a difficult time with the Jury’s view that Martin was the aggressor. Z job as watch is to find out where he went to protect the neighborhood, and if decide to jump someone instrad of heading home then Oh Snap.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            I watched the trial and said after the first week that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with the verdict. Your view is that Martin was the aggressor. The jury has said no such thing. You must not understand the basic question the jury had to answer to say that. The jury made a decision based on at the moment the gun was fired, did Mr. Zimmerman have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm (and such). The verdict is not about who started the fight, just that single, solitary moment in time. On that basis, I agree with the jury. During the trial the Sanford neighborhood watch lady testified. Evidence of the booklet she provided Mr. Zimmerman said nothing about following. On the contrary, the booklet said to simple observe and report. Mr. Zimmerman took no oath to “protect and serve.” He had no moral obligation to follow anyone. Remember, Mr. Hack142, both parties had a right to exist, defend, and stand their ground behind the houses. Thus, it is a moot point, short of video evidence, to accuse either party (while behind the houses) as being the aggressor or instigator. It simply is an unknown.

          • Hack142

            And the thoughts of the jury are also inknown but if they felt Z was al all the aggressor then conviction of manslaughter would have been upheld. Key word you stated-observe and that is what Z was trying to do when jumped. Case closed,

          • Anthony Rutledge

            It is good to see that you have adopted a more reasonable stance about thoughts of the jury in your first sentence, however, like I said before, there is no reliable and absolute evidence to suggest who the true aggressor was. The statues provide that even if someone starts a fight, they still have a right to self-defense if they start to lose the fight. Again, that is why the verdict is simply about a single, solitary moment (when the shot was fired). That’s it. Mr. Zimmerman did not simply get out of his truck and stand in one place to get a better view, he followed someone that he labeled an “as_hole” and “f_cking punk” before he even knew a thing about Mr. Martin. What is more, getting out of this truck was proceeded by Mr. Martin, running away (still having done nothing illegal). The morally correct thing to do is not to judge a book by its cover. You know, live and let live. Innocent until proved guilty (I guess Mr. Zimmerman did not feel Mr. Martin deserved that consideration). Let the police handle it. Look, you seem reasonable. Have you studied law? Here is a nice introductory text. http://www.amazon.com/The-Legal-Environment-Today-Regulatory/dp/1111530610/ref=dp_ob_image_bk

          • Hack142

            Mr. Z had every right to get out of his truck just as Mr. M. had every right to call 911 or run, instead Mr. M. decided to jump an individual and paid the ultimate price.
            Its just a shame that our country leaders and race baiters decided to make this political.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Mr. Zimmerman had a moral obligation not to harass, assault (exploring the definition might be a good idea), or negatively interfere with the life of a citizen who was committing no crime, hurting no one, and was going about his own business peacefully. Since Mr. Zimmerman does not live in his truck, of course he has the natural right to get out of it, but put his actions in context and in aggregate. It would appear that Mr. Martin experienced some form of fear due to the actions of Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman pursued Mr. Martin, and this is morally wrong. Would he have done the same to a beautiful woman? I think not. Mr. Martin had no moral or legal obligation to run or call for help. Like I said, both citizens had the right to do nothing, call for help, defend themselves, and stand their ground. There is no natural way to know, without a video, who was the true instigator of the physical confrontation. Thus, ascribing either party as the aggressor is a logical fallacy. I beseech you to think more deeply upon this matter. The ultimate deciding factor in this case is simply who lived to tell their story. That’s why a “killer take all” kind of legal environment is a morally bankrupt way for citizens to relate to one another. It provides an incentive for citizens in an altercation to kill their opponent to improves the chances of their story prevailing. True or false, can I start a fight by pushing or grabbing someone and it might not leave a significant mark? See, you cannot assume what happened during the physical confrontation at all.

          • Hack142

            There is no proof that Mr. Z. harrassed, assaulted or interfered with Mr. M. Mr. Z also has a right to walk that neighborhood just as Mr. M did.

            If Mr. M felt fear then he had options other then an altercation with Mr. Z.

            You need to see that self defense is not a bankruptcy of relating to one another.

            Let me ask you a question:
            If you carry a weapon, and are attacked by a younger man that has broken your nose and bashing your skull on the ground are you going to analyze the “right thing to do” or say “wow he seems so young I really enjoy this letting him continue” or “pull your weapon and squeeze the trigger? just answer the question and no smoke blowing required.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            Assault has a very broad definition (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault), and it may be wise to visit it before concluding that there is no proof of assault. No injury needs to occur for an assault to take place. Pursing someone and causing fear such that it makes one run away could be construed as an assault. Proving intent would be challenging, but not impossible given the complete context of the situation (calling the authorities on someone doing nothing wrong or illegal as pretext to give them a hard time), Mr. Zimmerman’s mis-characterization of Mr. Martin (a person he did not know), and Mr. Zimmerman’s atrocious and inflammatory use of language.

            You will get no argument from me in that Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin had equal rights that night. They had equal rights of being, defending, and standing their ground. The only thing was unequal was Mr. Zimmerman’s paranoid need to call the authorities on another fellow citizen for doing nothing wrong or illegal.

            I already agree that self-defense is a good thing. What’s bankrupt is removing someone’s duty to retreat (stand your ground) when they are outside of their home. In other words, if you carry a concealed weapon, you should be obligated not to intentionally follow or provoke anyone. Focusing on following, the stimulus for Mr. Zimmerman to go in the direction he did was Mr. Martin, not simply to see how big the rain drops were at the time. It was dark, and it should not be lawful to pursue a human stimulus while armed. Why? Because the pursuer knows from the start that he or she has the to power to kill their target with machine, and from a distance. There is no need to increase the probability of danger by following a free citizen, equally with the right to defend themselves and stand their ground. That’s just asking for trouble (especially in the dark, at night).

            Your question is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If I have a gun, cell phone, wife, job, bills, and college education to worry about, I’m just going to let the police handle it and not put myself in a position to be hit, or push someone first. Yes, before I even need to call the police, I would say hello to a fellow citizen. That is a much more civilized way to interact inside a community, and it would show that I respect the rights, feelings, and humanity of others. Is that a good enough answer?

          • Jah

            Another idiotic White racist reasoning from the left-side of his brain and sees any given situation in an orthodox manner not consistent with a logical, right-side thinking of the brain.

            By your delusional and warped reasoning, you’re essentially telling me to let a racist “approach me” in striking distance while he verbally assualt me and put me in a hostile situation that provoke me to defend myself. Now, let’s stop right there.

            If Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck, phone in a police and waited for the officer to arrive; why didn’t he?

            He had no right (and his action violated the Neighbor Watchman protocol) to confront a 17 year old kid with nothing on him except skittles and ice tea. He profiled the kid, stalked him, and then confronted him in a hostile manner. Those are the facts before anything else should be taken in consideration.

            Based on those facts, is enough to convict Zimmerman, enough to see that Zimmerman started it, instigated it and provoked an innocent citizen minding his business. He’s guilty on all fronts because of the first events leading up to the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman.

            That’s how you look at it: who started it? That’s the most relevant question as far determining who’s at fault.

            However, you have ignorant, racist-ass people like yourself that “prefer” to overlook how it all started and rather focus, instead, on who was on top of who. That’s flawed thinking. That’s the thinking of a left-side, brain-retard. A retarded person reasons like you. A sane and rational mind sees things from a logical perspective, and start at the “beginning.”

            In light of that, a Retarded Person and and a White Racist is of the same mindset, and their thinking is flawed!

          • Anthony Rutledge

            It would be wiser to make your argument and support it without accusing someone of being something. Personal attacks make you argument small and less effective.

            There are too many assumptions in your argument. First, neither person could know the character of the other that night. So, the notion of “letting a racist approach me” is not a good way to frame your argument at all. Second, there is no video to know exactly who the instigator was, verbally or otherwise. Now, let’s stop right there.

            Both citizens had equal rights that night, so without a video (with audio), you cannot conclude for certain who the true instigator was of the physical confrontation. You may infer, that inference may seem perfectly clear and logical to you, but if you are being completely objective, you cannot state as fact that either party started the altercation. That is the only fact about the case that makes complete sense, given the circumstances revealed at trial and common sense in general.

            Yes, Mr. Zimmerman profiled Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin fit Mr. Zimmerman’s idea of who was suspicious. Legally, that is not a crime when a citizen does it. I hate Mr. Zimmerman’s assumptions, but they amount to opinion and would be protected under the first amendment, unless Mr. Martin had lived to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the recording and sue Mr. Zimmerman for slander.

            You cannot know for sure that Mr. Zimmerman confronted Mr. Martin. Most of what you are saying are conclusions based on inferences, not verifiable facts. Stalking/following, we know Mr. Martin was the stimulus for Mr. Zimmerman to go in the direction of Mr. Martin, but that is all we know.

            Now, given what I have said, please, please, please, remove the emotion from your argument. Remove assumptions. Then you will see that the verdict, while it discounts the entirety of the context and meaning in which the situation occurred, is accurate based on the actual moment the gun was fired. Well, at least the jury is not wrong for concluding this, even though they cannot ever know for certain if Mr. Zimmerman pulled his gun and Mr. Martin instantaneously gave up.

            That’s why the law needs to change so that those who carry concealed weapons cannot intentionally follow another person without announcing themselves and their intentions. What a novel idea.

          • Jah

            I totally disagree with you. This is another example of flawed-thinking. The problem with your reasoning, it’s void of any “common sense” in a logical, straight-forward manner.

            You seem to hide behind the Law rather than deal with common sense —– one of the Ten Commandment laws states, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” So, as a thinking-man, what if I want to kill someone but make it so where, I didn’t break the Law. And if I succeed, does that means I must be deemed innocent since I masterminded my crime to fix the Law and the jurors have to acquit me because they couldn’t prove I broke the law even though I just killed a man because I wanted to.

            How do we, as a society, account for that? Where is the counter to someone hiding behind the law to commit crimes of cold-blooded murder?

            The answer is: Common Sense…..given the circumstantial evidence. And in the Martin/Zimmerman case, the circumstantial evidence was strongly against Zimmerman from the beginning and up til he shot that kid

            For you to focus when the shot was fired is flawed-thinking. You discounting critical evidence beforehand or willfully ignoring it due to racial stereotypes about the victim.

            Not that I’m accusing you of being a racist but your flawed-thinking is so questionable, and given the history of racism practiced against Blacks so often in America, it reeks of bare-knuckle racism.

            By the way, I stand totally correct after watching Anderson Cooper of CNN interview with Juror B37. Her frame of mind was racial from the beginning. This is precisely what I alluded to in my earlier comments here. She came across as a cavalier racist. She admitted Zimmermwn went too far. She admitted he should have stayed in the truck. She admitted he shouldn’t have used such language that racial profiled Martin. She admitted to all these crucial evidence and still found Zimmerman not guilty.

            Why?

            Because she said she liked that Zimmerman was trying to do the right thing and that she didn’t know nothing about Blacks except to highlight their low education, black cultured background as a “reason” she had no interest to hear Martin’s team of witnesses and argument.

            Again, that attitude borders on RACISM…..exactly like I’ve been explaining. Those 5 White women are racists and don’t even know it!. Did you know Juror B37 referred to Martin as “the little color boy”???

            So, as I said, I disagree with you, totally. You should question the competent of those racist-ass, White women before condemning me. I stand correct.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            I read your entire post twice and it is very worthy of a well thought out reply.

            I take it that you do not disagree that the law needs to change in one way or another though, right? It would be better if the law were to forbid intentionally following someone with a concealed weapon, right? Ok, so I’ll assume for the moment that you may agree with me there. It is always good to find something people can agree on.

            Your statement that “you [I] seem to hide behind the Law rather than deal with common sense,” is a bit misguided. I do not like that Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty and I do not agree that focusing on one moment is morally just or fair, just that the legal system has never been, and never will be perfect. The State has a very high burden in proving any crime, and their burden is cast inside a sociological pool of people with different life experiences and perspectives. In effect, friend, there is no such thing as justice, guilt, or innocence. It is simply a relative abstraction, similar to love and beauty, but often much crueler.

            The eyes of the beholders is how the system is set up. Unfortunately, as you allude to quite frequently in your posts, stigmas, stereotypes, biases, negative perceptions, prejudices, history, and, yes, subtle, latent, and overt racism frequently weigh heavily against African-Americans when we interface with the legal system (notice I do not call it the justice system). There are good people out there, friend, but realize that in order for you to function in society overall, you must reconcile these things with the need to find a job/start a business, socialize, find food and shelter, interface with the legal system, and live generally amongst a diverse population that has the ability to treat you unfairly, or indifferently, and not lose freedom or life, as long as no law is broken or legal duty failed. In short, there is no crime for holding racist views and acting on them, as long as no law or legal duty violated. Yes, vulnerability is a fact of life. The rawness of this stings. That’s part of being a minority, but we do not improve the system by calling others names and making others despise us more. We must endeavor to disprove bad assumptions, not confirm them with the baseness of our discourse.

            Therefore, please sincerely understand that I am not hiding behind anything. I do not fault you for think that, though. I understand your initial view. Rather, I deeply understand the problem of which you speak: sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, philosophically, historically, economically, educationally, legally, logically, emotionally, and personally. I see many perspectives, but I know that if I succumb to insulting others, my point is lost before I can be heard.

            I was a soldier in the 101st Airborne Division. I have helped kill the enemy. Should I be condemned too? Thou shalt not kill, so maybe we should disband our army? Just a thought, Mr. or Mrs. Jah. Just a thought.

            You do ask a profound question, Mr. or Mrs Jah. “How do we, as a society, account for that? Where is the counter to someone hiding behind the law to commit crimes of cold-blooded murder?”

            Answer: We must realize that law has limits, that law is not justice, and that justice is only what we make it to be. Thus, as man moves his motives, citizens must continually refine the law to reduce the potential for exploitation of those who are vulnerable. This is easier said than done and painfully slow, but it is one civil way to make conditions better (for everyone) for the next generation. The burdens of freedom are courage, vigilance, stamina, faith, endurance, compassion, and building trust amongst others. For the law is but words on paper if citizens take no civil action to protect themselves and their posterity.

            Hopefully, I have explained and addressed in the theme of my message the view of juror B37. She, like you, I, and others, are products of socialization in one form or another. Circumstantial evidence was not going to be enough to convince this jury (and, perhaps any jury that paid attention to the trial), beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Zimmerman was not in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Fundamentally, that point would have to be disproved for a conviction to have occurred in this case. The law can be broad or it can be a fine cutting instrument. It is all in how it is applied to the scope of the circumstances. Unfortunately, the narrow view prevailed and only considered, in the end, a narrow scope.

            Mr. Zimmerman is free because of a narrowed scope and a narrow view of the circumstances. No-one can inject instantaneous sociological perspective into the mind of another. The State had the burden and they could not overcome Mr. Zimmerman’s assertion of self-defense. The answer is to change the system, not insult and enrage other people (who may out number you). Alternatively, one could chose to abandon one society for another (Madonna did it). If you are advocate changing the system, you may get more support. After all, those who you “shout” racism to can also be followed with a firearm, in the dark. They do not want that any more than you or I do.

            You see, it is better to find something people can agree on than to be spitefully disagree able. However, friend, I view your pain and raw emotion on this matter as genuine and authentic. This is why I have carefully crafted this message to address your concerns as broadly as possible. Cheers.

          • Jah

            Anthony, I’m a dude. Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy. I just don’t think you grasp fully what’s happening here. You are right that there’s no “Justice System.”

            I’ll be frank with you though. White People need to decrease in numbers for the entire world to have peace. It is not racism or hatred on my part even though I believe Whites inhabits both traits.

            You don’t seem to understand, laws or not that, Whites, for the most part, hates Blacks, man. We have thrown a lot of resources, time and money but race relations between Blacks and Whites is nowhere on a level of love, equality and respect. Even illegal aliens get more love from Whites for the short time they have been here, and Whites are using them to hate us as fellow citizens.

            So, all this talk by you is just philosophical posturing. Though you mean well, it is not practical what you suggest that we “change the laws.” We’d need a majority vote to change laws. We need laws specifically designed to protect Black citizens from racists like Zimmerman and prevent jurors like Juror B37 from deciding a case with a Black victim.

            We need our own “protection” infrastructure against Judges, White citizens, racists, police officers and just about anything that affects our rights to live, freedom and be treated equally.

            You want my people to conform to your ideals of a utopia society but we have been going along with that for nearly 400 years and nothing really change except incremental improvements at a slow rate while other foreigners that comes here are not subjected to the treatment Black citizens have to endure…..not on the level Black citizens have to endure. It is what it is.

            The time must come for the White enthnicity to drastically decrease in numbers to a minority status and that can effectively bring about positive changes in the lives of Black citizens. I’m sorry man…….maybe in another life you and I could be best friends. I’m done with talking about it.

  • Youngster

    Yes, this is not a good situation. There were no winners, only losers. But, considering this was a situation where a “White hispanic” shot and killed seemingly threatening 17 year old, and it made huge news. Therefore, I ask this. How is it that everyday, defenseless Indian, chinese, Korean, and other ethnic minorities are killed behind counter, and there is no outrage. They are minding their own business, working hard, trying to make a living. Then, a thug walks in, shoots them dead and take their money. How come there is no call for justice?

    • Chaz Lesniewicz

      I think we all know the reason behind that one.. The media has a warped view of the real world and an obvious agenda….. Look at the recent Rasmussen poll on who Americans think are the real race haters are in this country and you will see it’s the exact opposite of what is shown in the media everyday..

    • jomodamusicman

      You are comparing apples to oranges. These clerks who are killed, because the robbers wanted a something (money) and many times murder was not the motive. And most important, these killers are always prosecuted and convicted. Zimmerman wanted nothing but Trayvon’s life. Prosecution & media sold the Big Lie to the Public that Z-Man was attacked & beaten by Trayvon when there was no physical evidence to support this lie. You had white people coming out of the woodwork to support Zimmerman’s lie. When 75% of all whites wanted an acquittal and would say & do anything to get an acquittal. how could the prosecution allowed an ALL WHITE JURY WHICH MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CONVICTION AND ACTUALLY PLACED TRAYON ON TRIAL INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL MURDERER, ZIMMERMAN

    • Anthony Rutledge

      I know. These killers should start calling 911 first and have their voices recorded while talking bad about their future victims. (kidding)

  • Neal Hatcher

    This is why African-Americans get racially profiled. Unfortunate but it’s true.

    • Cry Baby

      Sorry but not sure what “media” you are talking about. I have seen all of these and more.

    • Michael Ma

      All these and more? What does that mean? There’s photos of up of other black teens holding guns, flipping off the pic as well? The pictures of a teenager “profiles” him to become a trouble-maker in the future?

      I’m not disputing what you said when you say this is the reason African-Americans get racially profiled, but I am saying it’s ridiculous to use this as justification that the boy was going to be trouble. Let’s pull up the teenage pictures of the shooter at Sandy Hook, or the teenage pictures of the movie theater shooter in Colorado and see if those justify with what they ultimately did.

      • http://www.arrowheadaddict.com Patrick Allen

        Those aren’t other teens. Those are all pictures of Trayvon.

        That said, his argument is still ridiculous.

        • Michael Ma

          That’s what I’m saying, it would be ridiculous to try to prove that Trayvon’s pictures would justify him as somebody who could be a menace to society.

    • Anthony Rutledge

      The NRA should like that top left one.

    • Anthony Rutledge

      These pictures look a lot like the images that many Americans, of all backgrounds, have laughed about when they pertain to someone famous (like an entertainer). Is the suggestion here that these are poses that come innately from Mr. Martin, or from the environment and culture which he lived? Suppose the subject in these photos was a nice pretty young lady, What would be your view then? Obviously, it would depend on the circumstances. I think Willie Nelson would like that one under the gun.

  • bobby527

    I wonder if he would be “shining” if he stood up against gay marriage? Or is it only shining because it’s a “black thing?”

  • Fawn Lopez

    No one ever said the players didn’t have the right to speak out. Let them. But also let their words be judged like everyone else in society. When Roddy White says the jury should go kill themselves and Victor Cruz makes a veiled threat against a fellow latino in Zimmerman, we have the right to judge it. As fans, we pay their salaries. Just as my boss will judge anything I say outside of work.

    On a side note, I doubt any of these players watched the entire trial or have any understanding of what went on. If you didn’t, you should really shut your mouth.

  • matchb0x

    Nobody wants to talk about how Zimmerman was portrayed as a white man but is in FACT only Half white, yet it fits the white hate on black meme. I’m tired of it. President Obama is half white too but you NEVER hear that. Why is that? Because him being part black is part of a popular meme and facts dont serve well in these threads. In the end, we as a country continue to fall into the same old rascist and sad patterns and nothing has changed at all. Its boring and sad.

    • Michael Ma

      I have to somewhat agree with you here. The trial and the outcome was based on evidence, facts, and what could be proved. The media took it to the racial level.

      • Anthony Rutledge

        Yes, evidence. But what is also left out is that the jury is also instructed to use their “God given common sense.” I watched the trial, did you? There was no hard proof of anything that happened at the end (the moment the shot was fired) in terms of video or eye witnesses. Both had a right to self-defense and to stand their ground. Unfortunately, the system is “killer take all.” Zimmerman’s phone call took it to the racial level. Blame the freedom of information act, if anything. Zimmerman’s assumptions took it to the racial level.

        • Michael Ma

          I’ve been very aware of the situation since it first happened, and I don’t believe the outcome was justice.

          Having said that, I only hope that we can all just look at the trial itself without incorporating the element of race. I know that’s hard, and probably seems impossible to do at the moment.

          I understand that it is easy for me to take race out of the equation since there is a part of me that will never completely feel the emotions that’s involved with the racial side of things.

          As an Asian-American male, I can only identify and feel the racial element to a certain level, but can’t physically feel the total hurt and anger that most African-Americans are feeling at the moment.

          I’m not disagreeing with you at all in terms of the trial, but I do hope that people see this as a judicial problem, not a racial problem.

          • Anthony Rutledge

            On that note, it would be a good idea for study of the law to be incorporated into high school education. In terms of the legal system, yes, there is a judicial problem when the totality of a circumstances can be overridden by one moment (them moment the shot was fired). By the letter of statutory law, the verdict was the right one. However, law is not justice when it fails to uphold social or natural morality.

            Your thoughts on race are considerate and insightful. It would be nice to “suspend” race, wouldn’t it. But, in reality, when you walk in the United States as a non-Caucasian, you walk as “other.” You cannot suspend the ill will of those who are convinced, by evidence of walking and breathing, that you must be up to no good. It’s called a stigma; a stigma tied to history, of which race is a part. I cannot know what it is to be an Asian-American any more than I can know what it is to be a woman. I understand stereotypes, but it took more than a stereotype for Mr. Zimmerman to call 911 on someone who was just walking and breathing. Try as we may, there will always be some who will want us to be the antagonist in their play. You see, it makes that person feel better about him or herself. And at the end of the day, this is an issue about the power GZ must have felt in using 911 to “tattle” on something he was convinced was suspicious. If GZ had seen TM as a fully privileged and entitled member of the human community, he could have done a lot to satisfy his prejudice without involving authorities or giving someone the motivation to run away.

    • Anthony Rutledge

      The Obama black/white thing is a something that the historical majority devised. I am fine with seeing the President as being white. Of course, I am smarter than that and recognize that people are not one thing, but many things.

  • Anthony Rutledge

    This is what you say, Mr. Wade. “Son, to some people if it looks like a duck, it’s a duck. Try to look like a respectable giraffe instead (head held high). Run and yell at the same time if you have to. Here, let me put 911 on your speed dial. Yes, there is such thing as self-defense and stand your ground, but unless you are willing to kill the other party so that they can’t contradict you, run and don’t stop. That said, you are not old enough for a conceal-carry permit. People carry guns and you cannot out fight a bullet. Be aware of your surroundings. Knock on a neighbor’s door if you don’t feel safe. Don’t buy into that macho crap, that’s how Mr. Martin ended up dead. I can’t be everywhere to protect you, so heed my words, son. Lastly, if possible, walk with a flash light at night and wear bright colors if you can.”

  • the_muser

    Dwayne…here’s how ‘splain this to your boys…
    Tell them they should avoid skulking around after dark in places where they have no business being. Tell them not to have a hood on in someone else’s yard, miles from where they live. Tell them not to attack “Creepy lookin Crackers” when they ask why they’re where they don’t belong.
    They’ll be less likely to get shot.

  • the_muser

    Dwayne…maybe you could tell your boys that because of the behavior of “the bro’s”, regular folks are terrified of people that have dark skin, like your sons. You could blame the gangstas and punks for being garbage, or you could blame regular folks, little old ladies etc, for living in fear. In short, Dwayne, you can be part of the solution or part of the problem.

  • Earl Gaines

    Tell them it is safer in numbers! Tell them how the system really works. Tell the system is not set up for everybody. Tell them about the negative stereotypes of African American, especially Black men. Tell them you will always be treated unfairly because that just the way it is. Tell them to avoid confrontations to live another day. Just tell them!

2 hours ago

NHL Playoffs 2014, Stars at Ducks: Anaheim Holds On

2 hours ago

Anaheim Duck fans react on Twitter to Ryan Getzlaf taking puck to face

2 hours ago

NBA Playoff schedule 2014: TV schedule, matchups, game time info and more