You say this as though... a) this was the first time in the history of man that a black person had done something morally or legally questionable, and b) Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the only two people on the face of the earth to have a one-sided agenda. I don't get it. I'm sure you'd agree that a black person killing a white person doesn't necessarily have a racial component to it, any more than a white/hispanic person killing a black person doesn't necessarily have a racial component to it. So because there was a major media reaction to one incident (which gained so much traction because there was no police response), are we going to have a major media reaction to the second because two wrongs make a right?
That is patently false. The police reacted exactly as they should, as did the Chief of Police who was subsequently fired. The jury verdict bears that out. This was clearly a case of self defense. In the coming months you will see the likes of the City of Sanford, the County of Seminole, the State of Florida, NBC and possibly others be punished for acting in an inappropriate manner towards Zimmerman as they should. The timing for Zimmerman was unfortunate though. We were in an election year and nothing drums up voters interest like racial politics. None of the reaction from media coverage all the way up to the President's comments were an accident. Now for those current instances of black v. white violence: there is no election to win so there is no media coverage to be had. There is no money to be made from this, so the interest is low. That's just the reality of it.
I didn't say that there was an inappropriate police response, I said that the media attention on the Martin/Zimmerman incident spun up (if you remember Keith Olbermann wearing a hoodie while reading the news) because people were outraged over the lack of charges / investigations / etc. following what happened. Do we need to drag Sharpton and Jackson out onto TV again to try and appear balanced or unbiased or to seem as though they have a two-sided agenda?
Sharpton and Jackson are, professionally speaking, advocates for the interests of the African American communities. As such, they discuss issues positively and negatively affecting the African American communities. Their job is not to comment on literally everything done by a black person anywhere anytime, mostly because that would be exhausting ("Jamal made a sandwich today," commented Reverend Sharpton). Do you get angry at affordable housing advocates for not commenting on the happenings of your local condo board? Planned Parenthood for not spending enough attention on men's issues? Gay rights groups for not investigating every crime committed by a gay man?
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Cowbell on a political issue, but yeah, this, they're not responsible for all black people and all crimes that involve different races everywhere, they have niche issues and they smartly stick with it, I'm shocked anyone would criticize them for that.
I may have misconstrued what you wrote in your previous post: In any case, I'm of the opinion that any asshole (advocates/Pundits/etc.) who parades their stupid ass out in front of the camera for events like the Martin-Zimmerman fiasco in order to drub up more racial tension, be that Rush or Rev Al, should be forced to comment on every case of violent crime with a racial component one way or the other. If you are going to get rich in such a devisive manner then it should be tedious and tiresome to the individual performing the act. Because from where I stand someone like Al Sharpton is not providing a service to his community or the country at large, he is a button pusher. He doesn't provide solutions to problems, he shouts in a bullhorn with hairbrained ideas and claims.
Which crime? Make no mistake: there is a distinct difference between crimes having a racial component and having a racial motivation. I'm not claiming the latter because I don't have proof and I don't care about the motivation either. I care about the disproportionate attention being paid to certain cases as opposed to others and the motivation that lies there.
Sharpton, Jesse - yes they have their agendas that they play the race card for financial gains. I won't speculate on where their primary interests lie, but definitely no more shady than any given elected politician. My main hatred in all of this, which obviously hasn't been given much focus, is the press. Was the only picture of Trayvon available from 6 years ago when he was barely a teen? I've never seen such blatant attempts to incite a riot before in media. Bias is one thing, but this is downright fabrication to stir emotions.
It's not, and neither was the Trayvon Martin case. Why would Jackson and Sharpton comment? Why ruin decades spent trying to manipulate black people and race hustling for a nickel by bringing attention to an issue that has (minor) international implications and ruin their reputation?
Because that "old picture" bit was merely made up right wing websites. It's at best speculation, and even that is being generous.
Well fuck me he looks 12 in that picture. I still think the media stoked the coals in this. National exposure changes everything. If this story hadn't gained traction, a "special" prosecutor wouldn't have brought with an arbitrary reversal in the decision that there was enough evidence to go to trial. Personally, I think the death of a person warrants a trial, but Florida state law is what it is. Zimmerman's an asshole, but he's an asshole that deserves due process whether the country is watching or not.
I didn't say or imply either of those things. If you inferred it, that wasn't my intent. I was commenting only on Nom and ToyToy's specific posts.
I suppose I'll take the family's attorney's word even though he clearly has a motive to fudge the facts. That still doesn't explain why the media solely used that picture, which framed TM in the best light, while using GZ's mug shot from years ago with other more up to date photos available. I never saw the pictures of TM playing with guns and smoking blunts in the mainstream media, nor pictures of GZ without a orange jumpsuit.
I call bullshit. That was not the only picture put forth by the Martin family attorneys at the beginning of the case. I recall a local Orlando interview with one of the female Martin family attorneys where she was clearly tap dancing around the picture question because it was asked and it clearly was misleading. The media produced many a graphic showing Martin, clearly at 12 or so years old in his football uniform next to a 7 year old mugshot of Zimmerman. Very misleading and for a purpose. Let's not pretend that the Hollister picture is the beginning and end of this alleged "right wing" conspiracy.
Tweet from one of the accused: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/a ... ?hpt=hp_t1</a>
Obama: "If my wife got knocked up by a white guy, the bastard child would look like Christopher Lane."
Huh. Fair enough, then. I will say that life's probably gonna be pretty tough if you hate 90% of white people.
If he thought life was tough before, wait until he gets inside the big boy prison. Oh, wait, they're just bored kids(juveniles). They get a pass. Give me a fucking break.
Don't worry everyone Jesse Jackson has commentated on the Aussie slaying: "Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail,”