Michael, I read your link. You are TERRIFIC. What a lawyer! Also, you have a great sense of humor! You said what I was trying to say, but much more clearly than I did, and with a WHOLE lot more humor! Loved Bugs Bunny cutting Florida away from the United States. Hahahahaha
Thank you very much! (You may like the afterword I wrote for "Katrina's Ghost" too!)
Love it. Please, Michael, could you post a link to the afterword so people who don't have the book can read it? I think everyone should read that.
That would be up to Darren. I kind of think he'd like you to buy the book. :)
I kind of think so too. ;)
Even if Treyvon did attack first (thus "standing his ground" against someone following him with ill intent) it has always been that you are not allowed to give back more force than given during self-defense -- until NOW, with "stand your ground" laws.
Let me dumb it down for those who will understand this analogy. Zimmerman was the school bully who kept picking on the little kid over and over and over, and when the little kid stuck up for himself, the bully killed him and cried that HE was the victim of the little kid. Is it more clear now?
Also not mentioned in the blogs above is that ALLIGATORS are a metaphor, standing for creatures who creep, stalk, and then devour weaker creatures.
Here is something NONE of you mentioned, and it was ignored in the court case. Zimmerman called the police. The police told him to stay still and do nothing and wait until the police came. He DISREGARDED their instructions and that began the incident, secondary to Zimmerman giving himself permission to act like a policeman, gun and all, in patrolling and then following Trevon. I think he just had nothing better to do with his time than follow a black KID. This was not "two men". Any child under 18 is taught to FEAR and AVOID any man following him, because that person may want to abduct or sexually assault him, and may be a pedophile. So, you white guys think about how SCARED Trevon must have been. Feelings are not facts, so hypotheticals about how Trevon felt were not allowed in the trial. We, however, as adults, know that a strange man following a child under 18 is weird, scary, and suspect. Forget the race card if you want. Think about possible perverts out to stalk their next victim. What you would tell your kids is to not get into their car, don't engage them, and if they ask you a question, scream, yell, fight back or do whatever you have to do to not be kidnapped or raped.
Insulting Darrin or anyone who "takes Trevon's side" is rude. Just plain rude and demeaning. I, too, have to say OY, VAY about all the white guys who stick up for Zimmerman because the trial said he was acquitted. Just like in the O.J. trial, acquitted or found not guilty is totally different from whether or not the person did that thing. It only has to do with PROOF, and if there is not enough proof, the ONLY thing that can happen is they are CALLED not guilty. It doesn't mean it is true. Just means the best lawyer won his argument.
Thank you Mr. Bell. I scrolled down to add that South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas also have alligators, but that only feeds Lemont's argument. And yours. Thank you for your keen wit and vast patience and tact. Please don't ever stop. The media needs more people like you in it.
Oy. As a white man, I'm sickened and disgusted by all the reaction by white people justifying the murder of an unarmed young black man. If the response of the police and prosecutors didn't already demonstrate the continued existence of a deeply ingrained, institutional racism, the vitriolic justification of this travesty of justice sure does.
Assumptions and presumptions and Monday morning quarterbacking at what we think happened, is doing nothing to help the bigger picture here.
Both men, clearly distrustful of the other, led themselves to a place where the consequences of their actions left one of them dead. Both had culpability, but a 30 year old man vs. a 17 year old kid, in my mind, suggests that the 30 year old should have had the intellect to diffuse the escalation between them. A teenager being followed by an adult male who's not indicating to him why he's following him had to be, I would PRESUME, to be uncomfortable, unsettling and scary to a teenager.
Unfortunately, the media runs the discussion on race relations. In one breath, they spend their nights telling you about minority crime in your urban areas, in the next breath telling you we have a race issue and that minorities are profiled unfairly. The media creates the perception, in my mind, by throwing out facts and statistics about minority violence in our communities, while leaving out whites role in the violence they involve themselves in. It's to long of an explanation of statistical examples to post on a comic strip comments section, but from a white persons perspective [mine] vs. the media's, there is a manufactured bias [by media] built into the system that seems to purposely prohibit racial harmony.
Just one example. We blame minorities for draining our welfare system, yet 38.8% of whites and 39.8% of blacks are on it in this country, right now. However, we focus on the 39.8% of blacks. The stats show a stark similarity, but it's the minority population being blamed for draining our social programs. Why is that? Especially when that 39.8% of those using welfare in the minority community make up less than 15% of the population. Raw numbers prove, whites use welfare by a 3 to 1 margin.
Media lays the foundation. A hoodie on me is an article of clothing because I am white. On a minority, it an indictment. We learn this from television shows, rap music video's and other media entities that portray minorities as doing more to harm our way of life than any other group. Yet, if you look at the raw statistics, we are about the same when it comes to those who engage in bad behavior and criminal intent. It frustrates me. We are more alike, than we are different. The media however, they have the ability to profit from the discourse, so the discussion is theirs to do what they want with it.
Call me crazy, but that is where I see our problems.
Mr. Bell, thank you for your well-articulated, civil responses. I continue to be saddened by this tragedy. I'm glad that you're reminding us that there is a side to this that we will never hear.
The point is, this wasn't a 'good ol boy bar fight' where somebody calls you a blankety blank this and that, or disses your girlfriend, etc. and then you step off somewhere and fight until somebody either goes down or surrenders thus bringing a halt to the festivities. Generally, the participants wind up with bruises and broken noses and that is about it.
Manslaughter has been applied in cases where a punch has been thrown that 'accidentally' kills someone by breaking their neck, causes internal injuries, etc. and one of the combatants dies. It doesn't matter that the fight was basically a bare hands boxing match, without lethal intention.
THIS WAS NOT THAT KIND OF FIGHT.
It doesn't matter WHO started it, Treyvons' actions, (as observed by witnesses,) were CLEARLY designed to cause grievous bodily injury, and if his actions were not halted, could cause either permanent brain injury or the imminent death of WHOEVER he was beating on.
Treyvon was a thug wannabe. A thug response is to beat the living crap out of whoever 'dissed' him. In this case, he got dead as a result. I would further wager that if he had sucker punched Zimmerman and then walked away, Trevon would probably be alive today. In jail or juvie, but alive.
I hear you. Both of them made decisions that led to Martin's death.
But the thing is, you don't KNOW that any of that happened the way you describe. You have only Zimmerman's word for that. You're inclined to believe Trayvon Martin was a "thug wannabe," when in actuality only one of them had a documented history of aggression - and that was George Zimmerman.
The witness I believe you're referring to also testified that he exited the scene as soon as Martin started punching Zimmerman. So you seem to be relying on the word of Zimmerman's defense team and their paid "expert" witness for your conclusion as to what kind of fight this was and what sort of damage it would've done to Zimmerman had it continued. I say you're taking their word for it because the eye witness testimony was shaky and the forensic evidence taken from Martin's body and clothes did not prove that Martin did any of that to Zimmerman in the way Zimmerman described.
You're also basing your conclusion that Martin was a wannabe thug who lashed out because he was being disrespected on Zimmerman's account of the events. You don't know that his account was true. You and I don't know what was said between them. For all YOU know, Zimmerman showed him his gun. For all you know, maybe he didn't but perhaps Martin glimpsed Zimmerman's gun on his own and felt like HIS life was in danger. None of us will ever know what happened, but you've decided to accept Zimmerman's account, even though it's obviously a self-serving account of a man who had already shown a willingness to lie under oath (about his finances).
The ONLY facts everyone can agree upon are that Zimmerman was following Martin in his truck, Martin knew Zimmerman was following him, and that led to their fight. And I have no idea why you guys are so invested in disputing that Zimmerman provoked Martin. Provoking a fight does not mean the fight was justified, it only means that your actions incited another person to anger, fear, or some other emotion that caused them to want to fight. Claiming that his stalking a stranger had nothing really to do with that stranger then fighting with him, seems illogical to me.
View Comments (30)
Michael, I read your link. You are TERRIFIC. What a lawyer! Also, you have a great sense of humor! You said what I was trying to say, but much more clearly than I did, and with a WHOLE lot more humor! Loved Bugs Bunny cutting Florida away from the United States. Hahahahaha
Thank you very much! (You may like the afterword I wrote for "Katrina's Ghost" too!)
Love it. Please, Michael, could you post a link to the afterword so people who don't have the book can read it? I think everyone should read that.
That would be up to Darren. I kind of think he'd like you to buy the book. :)
I kind of think so too. ;)
Even if Treyvon did attack first (thus "standing his ground" against someone following him with ill intent) it has always been that you are not allowed to give back more force than given during self-defense -- until NOW, with "stand your ground" laws.
Here's my take on it: http://ventrellaquest.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/un...
Let me dumb it down for those who will understand this analogy. Zimmerman was the school bully who kept picking on the little kid over and over and over, and when the little kid stuck up for himself, the bully killed him and cried that HE was the victim of the little kid. Is it more clear now?
Also not mentioned in the blogs above is that ALLIGATORS are a metaphor, standing for creatures who creep, stalk, and then devour weaker creatures.
Here is something NONE of you mentioned, and it was ignored in the court case. Zimmerman called the police. The police told him to stay still and do nothing and wait until the police came. He DISREGARDED their instructions and that began the incident, secondary to Zimmerman giving himself permission to act like a policeman, gun and all, in patrolling and then following Trevon. I think he just had nothing better to do with his time than follow a black KID. This was not "two men". Any child under 18 is taught to FEAR and AVOID any man following him, because that person may want to abduct or sexually assault him, and may be a pedophile. So, you white guys think about how SCARED Trevon must have been. Feelings are not facts, so hypotheticals about how Trevon felt were not allowed in the trial. We, however, as adults, know that a strange man following a child under 18 is weird, scary, and suspect. Forget the race card if you want. Think about possible perverts out to stalk their next victim. What you would tell your kids is to not get into their car, don't engage them, and if they ask you a question, scream, yell, fight back or do whatever you have to do to not be kidnapped or raped.
Insulting Darrin or anyone who "takes Trevon's side" is rude. Just plain rude and demeaning. I, too, have to say OY, VAY about all the white guys who stick up for Zimmerman because the trial said he was acquitted. Just like in the O.J. trial, acquitted or found not guilty is totally different from whether or not the person did that thing. It only has to do with PROOF, and if there is not enough proof, the ONLY thing that can happen is they are CALLED not guilty. It doesn't mean it is true. Just means the best lawyer won his argument.
Thank you Mr. Bell. I scrolled down to add that South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas also have alligators, but that only feeds Lemont's argument. And yours. Thank you for your keen wit and vast patience and tact. Please don't ever stop. The media needs more people like you in it.
Oy. As a white man, I'm sickened and disgusted by all the reaction by white people justifying the murder of an unarmed young black man. If the response of the police and prosecutors didn't already demonstrate the continued existence of a deeply ingrained, institutional racism, the vitriolic justification of this travesty of justice sure does.
Assumptions and presumptions and Monday morning quarterbacking at what we think happened, is doing nothing to help the bigger picture here.
Both men, clearly distrustful of the other, led themselves to a place where the consequences of their actions left one of them dead. Both had culpability, but a 30 year old man vs. a 17 year old kid, in my mind, suggests that the 30 year old should have had the intellect to diffuse the escalation between them. A teenager being followed by an adult male who's not indicating to him why he's following him had to be, I would PRESUME, to be uncomfortable, unsettling and scary to a teenager.
Unfortunately, the media runs the discussion on race relations. In one breath, they spend their nights telling you about minority crime in your urban areas, in the next breath telling you we have a race issue and that minorities are profiled unfairly. The media creates the perception, in my mind, by throwing out facts and statistics about minority violence in our communities, while leaving out whites role in the violence they involve themselves in. It's to long of an explanation of statistical examples to post on a comic strip comments section, but from a white persons perspective [mine] vs. the media's, there is a manufactured bias [by media] built into the system that seems to purposely prohibit racial harmony.
Just one example. We blame minorities for draining our welfare system, yet 38.8% of whites and 39.8% of blacks are on it in this country, right now. However, we focus on the 39.8% of blacks. The stats show a stark similarity, but it's the minority population being blamed for draining our social programs. Why is that? Especially when that 39.8% of those using welfare in the minority community make up less than 15% of the population. Raw numbers prove, whites use welfare by a 3 to 1 margin.
Media lays the foundation. A hoodie on me is an article of clothing because I am white. On a minority, it an indictment. We learn this from television shows, rap music video's and other media entities that portray minorities as doing more to harm our way of life than any other group. Yet, if you look at the raw statistics, we are about the same when it comes to those who engage in bad behavior and criminal intent. It frustrates me. We are more alike, than we are different. The media however, they have the ability to profit from the discourse, so the discussion is theirs to do what they want with it.
Call me crazy, but that is where I see our problems.
Mr. Bell, thank you for your well-articulated, civil responses. I continue to be saddened by this tragedy. I'm glad that you're reminding us that there is a side to this that we will never hear.
The point is, this wasn't a 'good ol boy bar fight' where somebody calls you a blankety blank this and that, or disses your girlfriend, etc. and then you step off somewhere and fight until somebody either goes down or surrenders thus bringing a halt to the festivities. Generally, the participants wind up with bruises and broken noses and that is about it.
Manslaughter has been applied in cases where a punch has been thrown that 'accidentally' kills someone by breaking their neck, causes internal injuries, etc. and one of the combatants dies. It doesn't matter that the fight was basically a bare hands boxing match, without lethal intention.
THIS WAS NOT THAT KIND OF FIGHT.
It doesn't matter WHO started it, Treyvons' actions, (as observed by witnesses,) were CLEARLY designed to cause grievous bodily injury, and if his actions were not halted, could cause either permanent brain injury or the imminent death of WHOEVER he was beating on.
Treyvon was a thug wannabe. A thug response is to beat the living crap out of whoever 'dissed' him. In this case, he got dead as a result. I would further wager that if he had sucker punched Zimmerman and then walked away, Trevon would probably be alive today. In jail or juvie, but alive.
I hear you. Both of them made decisions that led to Martin's death.
But the thing is, you don't KNOW that any of that happened the way you describe. You have only Zimmerman's word for that. You're inclined to believe Trayvon Martin was a "thug wannabe," when in actuality only one of them had a documented history of aggression - and that was George Zimmerman.
The witness I believe you're referring to also testified that he exited the scene as soon as Martin started punching Zimmerman. So you seem to be relying on the word of Zimmerman's defense team and their paid "expert" witness for your conclusion as to what kind of fight this was and what sort of damage it would've done to Zimmerman had it continued. I say you're taking their word for it because the eye witness testimony was shaky and the forensic evidence taken from Martin's body and clothes did not prove that Martin did any of that to Zimmerman in the way Zimmerman described.
You're also basing your conclusion that Martin was a wannabe thug who lashed out because he was being disrespected on Zimmerman's account of the events. You don't know that his account was true. You and I don't know what was said between them. For all YOU know, Zimmerman showed him his gun. For all you know, maybe he didn't but perhaps Martin glimpsed Zimmerman's gun on his own and felt like HIS life was in danger. None of us will ever know what happened, but you've decided to accept Zimmerman's account, even though it's obviously a self-serving account of a man who had already shown a willingness to lie under oath (about his finances).
The ONLY facts everyone can agree upon are that Zimmerman was following Martin in his truck, Martin knew Zimmerman was following him, and that led to their fight. And I have no idea why you guys are so invested in disputing that Zimmerman provoked Martin. Provoking a fight does not mean the fight was justified, it only means that your actions incited another person to anger, fear, or some other emotion that caused them to want to fight. Claiming that his stalking a stranger had nothing really to do with that stranger then fighting with him, seems illogical to me.