It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Finds No Racial Bias in Trayvon Martin Shooting

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

If a bunch of kids were hanging out on a street corner breaking bottles in the road and I called 911 I'd say .. there are a bunch of white kids hanging out on a street corner breaking bottles in the road. Would I be racist for describing the white kids as white kids? No. If I said .. there are a bunch of crackers on the corner breaking bottles .. THEN I'd be getting into racial areas ...

See?


I used to live in a city that refused to mention race.

Even the police couldnt use race as an identifying trait for a suspect. At least they couldnt say they used race as an identifying trait.

The papers were filled with raceless descriptions like "6 foot male in jeans and a dark shirt"

Needless to say the city was and still is overrun with crime.

What a #hole that place was/is.




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



How absurd that we have laws that require a government enforcement authority to determine if you are a racist or not. Kind of like the charge of "conspiracy". Amerika, where thoughts can become crimes.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



How absurd that we have laws that require a government enforcement authority to determine if you are a racist or not. Kind of like the charge of "conspiracy". Amerika, where thoughts can become crimes.


I personally believe the whole FBI investigation into whether this was a hate crime was initiated due to the extreme hyperbole and disinformation along with media feeding frenzy and dramatization at the beginning of the case. I do believe at that point they had to show due diligence, so I applaud them for investigating this aspect of it and then passing an unbiased (and probably unpopular) call on the matter.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Because he was generalizing. He said those mexicans dent cars and he was tired of trying not to hit them when they were walking on the side of the road. He probably had no clue who the people were doing the denting but all the mexicans apparently do it. The trying not to hit them just sounds wrong to me. Like who says that? How is someone walking on the side of the road bothering you?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Since when is "Mexican" a racist term? My wife is Mexican. A graceful, dark skinned, raven haired Navajo goddess, if you go far enough back in the Mexican history. Unfortunately, the Europeans destroyed almost all traces of the indigenous culture in the Southwest, so most of what would in the North be called "indian", identifies themselves down here as "Mexicans".

Even more, Zimmerman himself is of latin descent. Is his racism that you are trying to point out not more a case of self loathing or something? I mean, calling someone who uses the term "Mexican" racist, without them actually saying it in a disdainful manner, is just silly.

Maybe that is the problem.....too many people use the term Mexican in the pejorative. Or perhaps you see the term Mexican in such a way. In that case, perhaps it is you who has some hidden racism. I know that I, personally, take offense at someone thinking that what my beautiful wife is, a Mexican, is somehow bad..



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



How absurd that we have laws that require a government enforcement authority to determine if you are a racist or not. Kind of like the charge of "conspiracy". Amerika, where thoughts can become crimes.


I personally believe the whole FBI investigation into whether this was a hate crime was initiated due to the extreme hyperbole and disinformation along with media feeding frenzy and dramatization at the beginning of the case. I do believe at that point they had to show due diligence, so I applaud them for investigating this aspect of it and then passing an unbiased (and probably unpopular) call on the matter.


Thats how it seems. Even in canadian media they were trying to paint a certain picture of the crimes. Media blitz?
They even played the obama gaffe all over cbc to sway opinion. Those tactics work on people who don't think, but are very emotionally driven in their political decisions.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Because he was generalizing. He said those mexicans dent cars and he was tired of trying not to hit them when they were walking on the side of the road. He probably had no clue who the people were doing the denting but all the mexicans apparently do it. The trying not to hit them just sounds wrong to me. Like who says that? How is someone walking on the side of the road bothering you?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Since when is "Mexican" a racist term? My wife is Mexican. A graceful, dark skinned, raven haired Navajo goddess, if you go far enough back in the Mexican history. Unfortunately, the Europeans destroyed almost all traces of the indigenous culture in the Southwest, so most of what would in the North be called "indian", identifies themselves down here as "Mexicans".

Even more, Zimmerman himself is of latin descent. Is his racism that you are trying to point out not more a case of self loathing or something? I mean, calling someone who uses the term "Mexican" racist, without them actually saying it in a disdainful manner, is just silly.

Maybe that is the problem.....too many people use the term Mexican in the pejorative. Or perhaps you see the term Mexican in such a way. In that case, perhaps it is you who has some hidden racism. I know that I, personally, take offense at someone thinking that what my beautiful wife is, a Mexican, is somehow bad..


What? Mexicans are not native americans! Some may be of mixed descent but the spaniards(mexicans before mexico) also fought the natives before the europeans became involved afaik.
It was tribal warfare, and after the lines on the maps were drawn, the birth pangs were still present. In fact, we're still feeling the effects.
As a white, we get blamed for alot of crap even though everyone fights



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Those tactics work on people who don't think, but are very emotionally driven in their political decisions.


Boom! Right there. That crap causes so much trouble.

This week locally a big story was some developer getting access to fill in "wetlands."

"Wetlands." An emotionally charged word that conjures up images of the Everglades and the Amazon rainforest.

Everybody in town was hysterically up in arms.

Turns out these "wetlands" were a man-made ditch on top of a hill well above the waterline totaling about 1000 square feet in an already heavily developed commercial area.

The government loves these emotional tactics. They can wield the mob mentality of the moron mass to their whim with a single term because lord knows only 5% of the idiots will bother to stop and think. The rest just hear "wetlands" and are all set to firebomb the building and skin the developer alive.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



How absurd that we have laws that require a government enforcement authority to determine if you are a racist or not. Kind of like the charge of "conspiracy". Amerika, where thoughts can become crimes.


I personally believe the whole FBI investigation into whether this was a hate crime was initiated due to the extreme hyperbole and disinformation along with media feeding frenzy and dramatization at the beginning of the case. I do believe at that point they had to show due diligence, so I applaud them for investigating this aspect of it and then passing an unbiased (and probably unpopular) call on the matter.


I agree it may be unpopular with some.

But to use the FBI to determine the facts in this? It is all about the "Hate Crimes" laws, so they were required to do it and determine if there was a federal crime. I get that.

What I am saying, however, is that the laws around "hate crimes" amount to nothing more than making your thoughts illegal. The same with conspiracy. So, if i think about doing something, i have conspired? I have seen that charge levelled, and stick, on people for drug charges. It is part of the piling on of criminal charges.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


What I am saying, however, is that the laws around "hate crimes" amount to nothing more than making your thoughts illegal. The same with conspiracy. So, if i think about doing something, i have conspired? I have seen that charge levelled, and stick, on people for drug charges. It is part of the piling on of criminal charges.



I think I should clarify something....we are in violent agreement about the whole "hate crime" law. I wasn't defending that. I was defending that once the hype caused what it caused, and because the stupid law is on the books, the FBI only did what they were required to do to show due diligence.

Sorry, didn't mean to present that I was in favor of that law. I'm not.
edit on 7-14-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Because he was generalizing. He said those mexicans dent cars and he was tired of trying not to hit them when they were walking on the side of the road. He probably had no clue who the people were doing the denting but all the mexicans apparently do it. The trying not to hit them just sounds wrong to me. Like who says that? How is someone walking on the side of the road bothering you?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Since when is "Mexican" a racist term? My wife is Mexican. A graceful, dark skinned, raven haired Navajo goddess, if you go far enough back in the Mexican history. Unfortunately, the Europeans destroyed almost all traces of the indigenous culture in the Southwest, so most of what would in the North be called "indian", identifies themselves down here as "Mexicans".

Even more, Zimmerman himself is of latin descent. Is his racism that you are trying to point out not more a case of self loathing or something? I mean, calling someone who uses the term "Mexican" racist, without them actually saying it in a disdainful manner, is just silly.

Maybe that is the problem.....too many people use the term Mexican in the pejorative. Or perhaps you see the term Mexican in such a way. In that case, perhaps it is you who has some hidden racism. I know that I, personally, take offense at someone thinking that what my beautiful wife is, a Mexican, is somehow bad..


What? Mexicans are not native americans! Some may be of mixed descent but the spaniards(mexicans before mexico) also fought the natives before the europeans became involved afaik.
It was tribal warfare, and after the lines on the maps were drawn, the birth pangs were still present. In fact, we're still feeling the effects.
As a white, we get blamed for alot of crap even though everyone fights


So, if the Mexican people are not of native descent, did they get their dark skin and dark hair from their European ancestors? I mean, I know a lot of blond hair/blue eye Mexicans (my wife has several in their family). And there is even some elitism tied into skin darkness among some elements of Mexican culture, kind of like the Brown Paper Bag Test seen in other cultures here in America.

My wifes family is from a region that was predominately Navajo, and it is presumed that they are mostly of Navajo descent

Before all the wars that the Spanish and other Europeans caused, the Amerinds were fighting each other. Tribal conflict is well known, and has absolutely nothing with my post or this thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
never mind if you want to play semantics with it. The universal view is that anyone who has white in them isn't colored.
It's also common to believe that white skin is evil, even though slavery and warfare is a part of every races' history, WE get the distiction of being the creators of it.
It's not the color, it's the classes that separate the masses



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed
You sound like you have alot invested in this being a hate crime.


I do, huh? Then perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension? Or did you miss where I said, "I'm not crazy about hate crime legislation"? In fact, I have ZERO invested in this being a hate crime. I don't like the idea of hate crimes. If you kill someone in cold blood, I thing you should be punished for THAT, not for the thoughts you have about the victim...

Maybe you should read before jumping to judgment.




Didn't the fact that a major news corp. faked an interview with a speech analysis technician saying George mumbled racial slurs, make you question the motivations?


I don't know anything about a faked interview. Sounds like a rumor to me. In fact, I heard "effing PUNKS" on the tape the first and every time I listened to it. I even "tried" to hear "effing cold" or "effing coon", but I couldn't. "Effing punks" every time.

Where race comes into this crime is when the cops arrived and dismissed the killing as just some punk trying to cause trouble and they let Zimmerman go. I suspect Zimmerman had racial motivations, but I don't think he should be treated differently because of his thoughts.

reply to post by HamrHeed
 



Originally posted by HamrHeed
The universal view is that anyone who has white in them isn't colored.


This is also quite untrue. If that were the case, our president would be considered "white" by the rest of the world... and this "universal view".

edit on 7/14/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HamrHeed
You sound like you have alot invested in this being a hate crime.


I do, huh? Then perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension? Or did you miss where I said, "I'm not crazy about hate crime legislation"? In fact, I have ZERO invested in this being a hate crime. I don't like the idea of hate crimes. If you kill someone in cold blood, I thing you should be punished for THAT, not for the thoughts you have about the victim...

Maybe you should read before jumping to judgment.




Didn't the fact that a major news corp. faked an interview with a speech analysis technician saying George mumbled racial slurs, make you question the motivations?


I don't know anything about a faked interview. Sounds like a rumor to me. In fact, I heard "effing PUNKS" on the tape the first and every time I listened to it. I even "tried" to hear "effing cold" or "effing coon", but I couldn't. "Effing punks" every time.

Where race comes into this crime is when the cops arrived and dismissed the killing as just some punk trying to cause trouble and they let Zimmerman go. I suspect Zimmerman had racial motivations, but I don't think he should be treated differently because of his thoughts.



And it's your OPINION that george killed him in COLD blood. So far, what has came out in court proves otherwise.
And therein lies the problem, some people will want to harm george even if he is proven to be acting in self defence ( in the case)
The media convinced alot of people he was guilty before it even started. As I said, they even try to sell this garbage on the cbc (funded by taxpayers)
The left is too emotional to effect any real change



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed



And it's your OPINION that george killed him in COLD blood. So far, what has came out in court proves otherwise.
And therein lies the problem, some people will want to harm george even if he is proven to be acting in self defence ( in the case)
The media convinced alot of people he was guilty before it even started. As I said, they even try to sell this garbage on the cbc (funded by taxpayers)
The left is too emotional to effect any real change


I wouldn't consider myself "left" in any form or fashion, but the evidence does not support that Zimmerman killed anyone in self-defense. You don't bring a gun to a fist fight...especially one for which your actions caused the initiation.
edit on 7-14-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Lets be honest here....


....Zimmerman's final act of killing Martin seems to be, if the reports are true, an act of self defense. And, if we take the myopic viewpoint that this final step is the only thing that matters, it is true. It is an act of self defense.

BUT, there is more to the story. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch. A civilian. This civilian went out actually patrolling with a gun. Yes, he is licensed to carry it, but the first thing that we notice is that he actually did it. He put himself into the role of police officer. And, according the Neighborhood Watch spokespeople, what he did is outside the bounds of their operating guidelines.

As well, he contacted authorities. However, he felt that authorities would be too slow. So, despite the direct instructions of the authorities, he went to investigate. This is where the line was truly crossed. Being armed was kind of a gray area, because he was licensed. But when he went to investigate, and confront what he was calling a "suspect", that is where he went too far.

I can imagine Martin was defensive. Here is a man who approached him, acting as if he had authority. I can also imagine that Martin may have had recollections of other times when "bubbas" treated him the same, and called him "boy". I would further postulate that if that is true, that Martin was fairly hostile about the whole situation. Thus, we can see how the situation escalated and someone ended up getting shot.

Zimmerman had no role, and no duty to go and confront Martin. Martin was not in the act of committing a crime. He was walking in his dad's neighborhood. Zimmerman DID have every right to be suspicious. But he crossed that line when he approached Martin demanding to know what was being done.

I fully believe that he wasn't acting racially. But I also fully believe that Martin was feeling very persecuted by the whole incident, and likely just kind of snapped a little over it. Like, "Damn, i can't even walk in my dad's neighborhood without being harassed." And, if he happened to have a racial chip on his shoulder, I can imagine that it only would have exacerbated the whole issue.

So no, Zimmerman didn't murder out of racial hatred. But Zimmerman did commit manslaughter, in my honest opinion. He had no right putting himself or Martin in that situation, and despite all warnings did so anyway.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

And it's your OPINION that george killed him in COLD blood. So far, what has came out in court proves otherwise.


Really? What has come out in court to prove otherwise?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   


Oh, don't get your hopes up. We still need to know why the armed Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, becoming the aggressor, after having been told not to. That's the key to this case, IMO.
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

You're not an aggressor if you follow someone. And there is no law that says you have to take orders from anyone, let alone a dispatcher. Zimmerman did stop when asked, but then they asked him to go look at the address; so he did, and on his way back to his car Martin approached Zimmerman and (after an exchange of words) attacked Zimmerman.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming


Don't worry, plenty of us think it was just murder.


Plenty of morons also think with emotion because confronting facts would cause great confusion in their tiny little peanut brains.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
1. Whether Zimmerman had racist motivation or not only deals with the "hate crime" assertion of the murder. It doesn't mean there was no racism, it just means the FBI found no evidence of racism. I didn't either. I suspect there was a racial element, but I'm not crazy about hate crime legislation anyway, so no harm done, IMO. So, the news is only "huge" in that it absolves him of a "hate crime".

It removes that argument for intent from the prosecutions case. They can no longer state the reason Zimmerman did what he did was because Martin was black.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
2. This news does NOT support Zimmerman's assertion that Trayvon was "being suspicious". That's not how law works. All this news says is that the FBI cannot prove a hate crime. The state still has to do its job.

Actually it does and as I stated before the FBI results will have impact on Zimmermans prosecution. The hooded sweatshirt, the fact Martin was visiting his father who lived in the neighborhood making Martin unknown to Zimmerman etc meets the criteria of a person acting suspicious. Suspicious does not automatically make actions a crime.
The phrase you will most likely hear is going to be totality of circumstances. It means taking all evidence, from start to finish, to put the puzzle together. We cannot look at any one single event that night to explain the entire situation. All factors, including crime stats in the area, the gang issues etc etc etc, must be taken into account. Taking them individually creates a scenario that is not supported by all the facts.

Secondly you have to take into account court rulings dealing with civilian actions as opposed to law enforcement actions. There is a higher standard that covers police because of their training than there is for civilians.

What would a reasonable person in that situation do? There is nothing illegal about seeing someone you arent familiar with and contacting the police. There is nothing illegal about following an individual, either on foot or by car.

* - You have a higher crime rate in the area.
* - You have a gang that identifies itself by their choice in clothing,
* - You have stats showing the property crimes are occuring at night, not during the day.
* - You observe an individual in the neighborhood who you are not familiar with.
* - You observe the individual wearing clothes that are indicative of a gang member in that area.
* - You have Martin notice he is being followed at which point he raises his hood.
* - Eventually Martin bolts from the area, running away.

Actions that are consistent with the crime and gang stats in that area. Again, suspicious behavior based on totality of the crimstances that Zimmerman had is consistent with what law enforcement reaction might be if they were present.

The above factors meets the legal definition of reasonable suspicion for law enforcement. Those facts would allow an officer to make contact with the individual and identify him.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Hearsay.

At any point are you going to bother to keep up with the info coming out? Or are you simply ignoring info you dont care to hear?
Bay News 9 - More interviews, new photos released in George Zimmerman case


The FBI investigated whether the case was a civil rights issue. Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino told agents that he "believed that Zimmerman's actions were NOT based on Martin's skin color, rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community."

Serino goes on by explaining that there's a local gang known as the "goons" that Zimmerman may have believed were responsible for previous criminal activity in the neighborhood.

That gang, according to Serino, would dress in black and wear hoodies, and that could be why Zimmerman viewed Trayvon Martin as suspicious.


So no, its not hearsay.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, don't get your hopes up. We still need to know why the armed Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, becoming the aggressor, after having been told not to. That's the key to this case, IMO.

As has been covered many times its not illegal to follow a person. Its not illegal to make contact with a person. Zimmerman was in lawful possession of a firearm.

Secondly 911 dispatchers are NOT commissioned law enforcement and because of that they can't direct Zimmerman to the bathroom, let alone tell him not to perform an action so no, its no key to the case. Zimmerman was present, the 911 dispatcher was not.
Question in bold, reply underlined -

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this
investigation?


Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following
him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call
taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.
Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to
meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon
.


Sanford Press Release addressing questions - PDF format

In the rush to comply with politics instead of the law the PA assigned to take over the case is looking more to make a name for herself instead of doing her job in the prescribed manner.

I am going to wager that at some point down the road she is going to get popped with either Bar Ethics violations or prosecutorial misconduct.

Some other things to consider -
If Martin was that upset about being followed why did he continue to walk?
If Martin was that upset why did he ignore his girlfriends advice to leave the area?
If Martin was in such fear, why did he not call 911 to report he was being followed by a suspicious individual in a truck?
When Martin ran away, people are making leaps of logic by assuming he was running to get away. Its jut as easy to to argue Martin was circling back around in order to confront Zimmerman.

The results of the FBI investigation has pretty much destroyed the key element required for 2nd murder - depraved indifference.


edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: Lysdexic err Dyslexic today....

edit on 14-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall


I wouldn't consider myself "left" in any form or fashion, but the evidence does not support that Zimmerman killed anyone in self-defense. You don't bring a gun to a fist fight...especially one for which your actions caused the initiation.
edit on 7-14-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


Evidently you haven't paid any attention at all to the reports about this case. The injuries on the back of Zimmermans head.......where do you suppose those came from?

Wait, let me guess....He shot the dude, then beat his own head on the pavement right?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join