Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

One is racist assholism with delusion, one is racist assholism without?

By your logic, it's not a hate crime for a white neighbor to burn a cross on the lawn of the only black family in town.

― thuggish ruggish Brahms (DJP), Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:15 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, that would be a perfect example of a hate crime, because it's obvious that the whole purpose of the crime is to intimidate based on race. I mean THAT'S why you have hate crime laws -- because otherwise burning a cross, which is a horribly fucked up and violent act, would just be petty vandalism.

killing a black dude because you're racist is pretty intimidating to other black people fyi

what about "i'm going to kill that black guy because he whistled at a white woman (in large part because i have a warped perception of black people"

as george zimmerman has proven to be a clear danger to black people, the obvious answer, under florida law, is for a black person to shoot him in self defense.

hoos gay co-worker thread to thread

i might not recall correctly, forgive me, but i thought that hate crime legislation only provided for increased sentencing on crimes found to be motivated by racial bias?

what about "i'm going to kill that black guy because he whistled at a white woman (in large part because i have a warped perception of black people"

― the late great, Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:19 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah exactly. ps killing black men because they're all intent on robbing you is the SAME RACIAL MYTHOLOGY as black men will rape all your white women because they're oversexed brutes.

I realize that this is not an argument I really want to keep making for much longer, but I still think there's a distinction. But "he whistled at a white woman" is pretty categorically different from "I unreasonably thought he was a burglar."

mookie i have already done that joke, keep up!

sorry, tracer

I realize that this is not an argument I really want to keep making for much longer, but I still think there's a distinction. But "he whistled at a white woman" is pretty categorically different from "I unreasonably thought he was a burglar."

― the prurient pinterest (Hurting 2), Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:21 PM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no. there's a cultural attitude we're isolating here and it's about an image of black men that is pretty disgusting and familiar.

also hilariously backward. again, who is a threat to whom here.

as far as I know, federal hate crime legislation involves penalty enhancement, not new categories of crimes? (prosecution under civil rights violations is sort of a separate and prior category).

i'm sort of surprised that the guy who walks around with a LOADED GUN AT 4 IN THE MORNING, FOLLOWING PEOPLE wasn't reported to the cops a few times.

he's fighting the good fight

he's dirty harry out there

puke

i'm sort of surprised that the guy who walks around with a LOADED GUN AT 4 IN THE MORNING, FOLLOWING PEOPLE wasn't reported to the cops a few times.

it's okay cuz he's not black do you see

glad to hear there's some solid, case-related evidence that would support a hate-crimes prosecution. referring to the slur on the tape. was waiting (and, forgive me, hoping) for that. and yeah, i know that the feds can't prosecute the murder/manslaughter charges themselves, but they can put pressure on local police and the DA's office by suggesting that they're acting improperly in failing to prosecute - or at least i think they could do this.

so one could conceivably kill anyone, on a whim, and as long as no-one else saw it claim it was self defense and get away with it? really? for real?

― ledge, Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:45 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, absolutely. it's happened before.

even if we have every reason to doubt his character and state of mind, i suspect that his story will be awfully difficult to unambiguously disprove in a court of law.

Trials . . . do not work that way?

― butvi wouls (Phil D.), Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:49 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

um, i think they do? the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman's story was false, that he acted recklessly or with malice of intent.

thankfully, now that other evidence is being revealed, this seems more likely than when i argued earlier that it would be difficult.

I wasn't entirely comfortable with this being considered a hate crime until I heard Zimmerman's remark in that 911 call (I don't think I would've ever have made it out if it wasn't pointed out).

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally "interesting" that the 911 operator asks Zimmerman if the suspect is black or Hispanic.

the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman's story was false, that he acted recklessly or with malice of intent.

No, the jury never gets to hear Zimmerman's story unless he takes the stand. There's nobody else around to testify to it, after all. If you're his lawyer, do you put him on?

he says "black, hispanic or white" iirc, sort of in the same tone of voice that you'd ask someone if they'd prefer fries or onion rings

emergency dispatchers have some kind of iron in their soul that i don't, respect

No, the jury never gets to hear Zimmerman's story unless he takes the stand. There's nobody else around to testify to it, after all. If you're his lawyer, do you put him on?

i don't necessarily mean his words from his lips, just his version of events - and yes, that likely presented by his lawyer

good comma there goole

His lawyer cannot testify as to events, he can only ask questions. xp

yeah exactly. ps killing black men because they're all intent on robbing you is the SAME RACIAL MYTHOLOGY as black men will rape all your white women because they're oversexed brutes.

― horseshoe, Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:21 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

both these things are about white dudes' property, just to make it explicit

Adding: Opening and closing arguments are not testimony.

the irony that white people think black people are so scary when really black people are terrified of white people because look what happens.

This, this, a thousand times this.

Also, I think we all know what would have happened had Martin been armed and shot Zimmerman: He'd be in jail right now, any self-defense claim would be rejected, and they'd probably be preparing to try him as an adult and lock him up forever (or execute him) because of the vicious nature of the crime of gunning down a community leader who was trying to protect his neighbors.

going to go stare expressionlessly at the wall for 5 hours, brb

the right wing argument is, i believe, zimmerman is actually mexican so it can't be a hate crime.

― goole, Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:44 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i wrote something about this today and so far the right-wing comments/twitter reaction is "why didn't you specify zimmerman's race, eh?"

goole knows his right wing

i mean even taking away the racial aspect for a second, it's still fucked beyond fucked that some huge dude shot an unarmed 17-year-old kid carrying a bag of skittles

or, deep in the comment weeds, there was an attack earlier this month by two black kids with gasoline on a white kid in kansas city, and "nobody in the liberal media cared", even though the cops a) considered it a hate crime and were b) investigating it! double standards!!

that was nice btw, max, your gawker piece. i don't know what to do with my feelings about this case, but that helped.

His lawyer cannot testify as to events, he can only ask questions. xp

― butvi wouls (Phil D.), Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:47 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

as i understand it, lawyers can and do present theories regarding what happened. they do it directly in summation, and they do it by calling witnesses that will present a certain version of events.

thanks h

[continuing from my xp] i mean, you say that "opening and closing arguments are not testimony", but opening and closing arguments attempt to frame and explain testimony. they provide a narrative that the legal team hopes the jury will accept as the truth.

or, deep in the comment weeds, there was an attack earlier this month by two black kids with gasoline on a white kid in kansas city, and "nobody in the liberal media cared", even though the cops a) considered it a hate crime and were b) investigating it! double standards!!

yow, never heard about this. sounds ghastly.

story promoted heavily on conservative blogs

well, i don't read those, so no wonder. is there any other dimension to it that might make it generically newsworthy, like were the assailants not charged?

goole reads these things so we don't have to

zimmerman's and the police department's racist motives are disturbingly complementary tbh; the police were likely just relieved that zimmerman was not related to any of their officers, that he was non-white was just a bonus

damn max, really love ur piece.

ha i just found that shit now! a case like this i always wonder what the 'other side' thinks. plus it's kind of a case study in information pathways and what have you.

okay i looked at the comments thread and they do like to accuse the reporters of "stirring up racial tensions." not the dude who said "fucking coon," of course. it was max who did it.