Mural shows man shooting likeness of Trayvon Martin

Hot controversies never die fast.

So it rings true with a mural painted by a gentleman a woman artist that has ties to Dream Defenders.

Dream Defenders is said to be the ones who hyped the case to begin with.

The odd part is that the mural appears to show 'Martin' being shot in the back of the head.

That part is extremely controversial I believe.

Martin was shot in the chest.

"message" being ???

ORLANDO, Fla. -

An eye-grabbing mural showing a picture of a man shooting a likeness of Trayvon Martin was unveiled Friday at the state Capitol.

The message of the 100-foot mural, created by Miami artist Huong, is "We are all Trayvon Martin."

The mural shows a man who looks similar to George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch leader who shot and killed Martin in February 2012 and was later acquitted in the teen's death, shooting a person wearing a hoodie. There's a mirror in the mural where Martin's face would be so visitors can see themselves as the teen.

Mural shows man shooting likeness of Trayvon Martin

Huong also joined the Dream Defenders, a group holding a sit-in protest outside Gov. Rick Scott's office for the past four weeks. The group plans on taking the artwork on a nationwide tour, although the exact locations are not yet known.

Hmmm. I wonder how much the admission will cost ?

Pretty tasteless if you ask me.

Whoever painted this only did it to get a rise out of people. Whatever happened to respecting the dead? Even if Trayvon was a "thug", crap like this is still uncalled for.

ETA: Oh, never mind, apparently it's a tribute. Looks like I jumped the gun. Either way, this story needs to be dropped. The verdict is in, let it go.

reply to post by xuenchen


You know that you are going to draw the Vermin out with this one, . right?

It will be Troll Season here soon.

The Likeness?

He has a damn Hoodie on with no face.. . Where is the likeness.. ..

Zimmerman? . .. . Shooting him in the Back .. What the F[SNIP]K is with that?

The whole Damn thing Wreaks to High Heaven of Serious DisInformation.

It is obvious that the artist is a racist.

BULLS[SNIP]T

ETA:
That is pretty damn pathetic that the artist added Dr. Martin Luther King into that damn mess.
I am certain that he would be absolutely ashamed and disappoinbted that he has been made into "Race Bait". His fight was against what the artist is portraying.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


So someone should be shot in the back for exercising their freedom of expression?
Murica?

reply to post by Kali74


Certainly.

I can appreciate free expression, however a picture is worth a thousand words and when you use pictures to tell lies the bias becomes as obvious as the racism.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

So someone should be shot in the back for exercising their freedom of expression?
Murica?

Yeah shooting someone in the back for exercising their freedom of expression is pretty low.

So is the condescending attitude you display towards America. "Murica" is a hate word.

reply to post by Bassago


"Murica" as I used it pertained to the poster and the concept of him/herself that I was left with, not our Nation. How you missed that context is beyond me.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


So if you don't like someone or something, just shoot it in the back?
WTF?

reply to post by xuenchen

The message of the 100-foot mural, created by Miami artist Huong, is "We are all Trayvon Martin."

I'm starting to wish A LOT of people WERE actually Trayvon.

Anyone still peddling this crap is a first class turd and should be ignored. There is no outrage left for these turds to exploit. Time to move on.

reply to post by Kali74


"Murica" is not a valid word in he dictionary although it is a slang word used by Hillbillies and Rednecks to describe America.

So, I can see how your intention with that word could be easily missed.

In any event. I rephrased that sentence as I thought it might be a little harsh.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Nah you covered your ass.
Own up to it.

reply to post by Kali74


My point was obvious and I don't see how you could have missed it.

The artist composed the piece poorly. It does a great injustice to the facts of the case.

There is going to be someone who will eventually see that picture that has no clue about that case and they are going to think that the poor child in the Hoodie without a face was shot in the back by a racist gang member. . .. and they are going to wonder "who the hell is that guy on the left?"


Do you Not see that at all?

reply to post by Kali74


I didn't do it to cover my ass. I really said it in anger. In case you didn't notice, I left it in the reason edited comment.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Kali74

 

"Murica" is not a valid word in he dictionary although it is a slang word used by Hillbillies and Rednecks to describe America.

So, I can see how your intention with that word could be easily missed.

In any event. I rephrased that sentence as I thought it might be a little harsh.

Interesting. I've never heard anyone use the "M" word except in a derogatory manner (and there are thousands of redneck around here.)

Kali74, this mural painter is just trying to stir up more racial tensions. We could use a little less of that right now in the US. And he wants to go on tour to spread the animosity. GZ was acquitted on all charges, people need to get over it.

reply to post by Bassago


My impression of the poster I responded to was that of someone who would say "Murica". I honestly would have not have replied in this thread at all had I not seen a poster encouraging shooting artists in the back if they paint something they don't like. To be honest I don't really care what the artists intention was, I don't care where it's displayed, it's art... personal and subjective and I don't think it's okay to try censor it.

Maybe I am getting a little angry because of the stupidity involved.

I read in a post somewhere earlier that the Mods should ban all of these Zimmerman/Martin threads and I was against that. . . I thought. .. . .. Until now.

I have come to the realization that this crap is Not going to stop.

Now, because of this, those particular Trolls are going to come into this thread and start arguing about the case again for the millionth time.

Ya know, I am not a Trayvon Cheerleader. I think he was in the wrong and suffered the consequence. Now he is dead. Let the boy die in peace for Christ sake. Everyone at least deserves that.

And for those who are trying to make him a martyr, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

reply to post by Kali74

I don't think it's okay to try censor it.

Just so that it is clear. .. I did not say anything about censoring. I said shoot him in the back.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Kali74

 

I don't think it's okay to try censor it.

Just so that it is clear. .. I did not say anything about censoring. I said shoot him in the back.

I don't how you could censor an artist more permanently than by killing them.

reply to post by Kali74


Well I guess I could be destructive to his work

That would count.

But I couldn’t bring myself to do it.

In 1642 Rembrandt painted a piece called The Nightwatch, which was originally entitled The Legend And The Man. It is said to portay Captain Frans Banning Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenhurch and their troops. The group is either going out on night patrols, or banding up to go out on day watch patrol. That is where the name "Night" "Watch" came from. Ironically, the group was a bunch of "Has Beens" that had outlived their usefulness as there was no longer a need for them to defend Amsterdam or to go out on watches either during the night or day. Some believe that is what ended Rembrandt's career.

So the paiting was a lie. Just like this one.

If you want to learn what controversial art is all about study that piece.