Why is Joshua Chellew less important than Trayvon Martin?

wow really ?? a gang attack that was not racially motivated ??
does such a thing even exist ??

apparently the gangs have been around soooooo long that their origins seem to have disappeared into the annals of something or someone cause memory wouldn't be one of them.

OP, no gun = no agenda ... just common violence they'd prefer to blame on guns.

ps ... as for the Zimmerman/Martin comparison, it doesn't compute.
the 2 sides can be summarized quite simply.
one believes that self-defense in an absolute right in every situation.
the other believes assaulting a complete stranger for whatever imagined reason is appropriate behavior.

in the Chellew instance, i would suggest that had he been armed, he wouldn't be dead.

So this was gang related but not racist? What's that supposed to mean? Gangs in Cobb county are
integrated?

Is this a joke? Everywhere I know of, the gangs are divided along race lines. Tongans with Tongans, Samoans with Samoans, Guatemalans...etc.

It would be more correct to say that if its gang related, its' racist.

Is there anyone from Atlanta area on here? What do these gang colors mean locally?

Originally posted by Honor93

one believes that self-defense in an absolute right in every situation.
the other believes assaulting a complete stranger for whatever imagined reason is appropriate behavior.

That's a completely ridiculous summary of the attitudes involved. Normally I'd say that someone who writes such a thing would know that and just be making it up, but in your case I'm not so sure.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

them is the facts Junior.
just stating the facts.

you can call it ridiculous all you want, i say, prove it.

the only ppl who should encourge a level of physical assault during a 1st encounter should be instructors at the local Dojo ... anything short of that and there's your Thug or in this case, thugwannabe.

do tell, what 'assault' or other crime did Chellew commit to warrant a group attack ??
we know TM assaulted Zim ... so, how is Chellew's death any less important than the criminal known as TM ??


honestly Junior, from the way you talk, i expect history books will soon read that Jesse James wasn't a criminal because he was never tried or convicted

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

them is the facts Junior.
just stating the facts.

You think it's a fact that everyone who doesn't support Zimmerman considers assault appropriate behaviour. It is not.

so, how is Chellew's death any less important than the criminal known as TM ??

It isn't. What's differentiates the case is that Chellew's alleged killers were arrested and are on remand. People got annoyed in the Martin case because they felt a black youth was not given due process and his killer let off too easily.

The Chellew case in fact reinforces that argument.

honestly Junior, from the way you talk, i expect history books will soon read that Jesse James wasn't a criminal because he was never tried or convicted

edit on 24-7-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

Are you equating Martin to Jesse James? If so, you are literally mad.

You claimed before the trial that Martin was casing houses (proven to be untrue) and that he was trespassing (proven to be untrue), so perhaps you should consider your bias, not mine.

Originally posted by Honor93

the criminal known as TM

It's telling that you would use that term about someone never convicted of a crime, but insist that his killer receive every benefit of the doubt despite a documented history of violence, wife beating and now, um, killing. What could possibly be making you do that?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

no, i believe it is or they would support the verdict rendered.
it is appropriate.

as for those who don't support Zimmerman, that is their right.
however, that's no excuse to be protesting and assaulting anyone who crosses their path ... need a link ?

i disagree.
Zimmerman was processed and released, per the law.
Sharpton and community conflict created the rest.

Chellew had no "reasonable" method to defend himself so how can you even compare the two ??

a criminal is a criminal, attach whatever name fits.

the truth ppl don't want to accept is that TM was committing a crime at the time of his death and dealt with appropriately.

i may have suggested tresspass as he was traversing private property without consent, however, you'd have to link the "casing" comment as i don't recall saying any such thing.

your other comment was already addressed ... like i said, it won't be long and ppl will profess that JJ can't be a criminal, he was never convicted

assault = violent crime
he did it and that makes him a criminal.

reply to post by Honor93


What rubbish. To say that you are uncomfortable with the way Zimmerman acted or the way he was released in no way endorses assault.

And Martin may have acted violently against Zimmerman but to equate him with Jesse James? That's just ridiculous.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Honor93

 

What rubbish. To say that you are uncomfortable with the way Zimmerman acted or the way he was released in no way endorses assault.

And Martin may have acted violently against Zimmerman but to equate him with Jesse James? That's just ridiculous.

shame, shame ... excuses, excuses, and more excuses.
you just can't allow yourself to admit that TM committed a crime, can ya ?

be that as it may, the truth is what it is, no one is forcing you to accept it.

To say that Zimmerman behaved appropriately given the assault he endured isn't endorsing murder, either.
however, to compare Chellew's demise to that of TM is disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by Honor93


shame, shame ... excuses, excuses, and more excuses.

Where have I made an "excuse"? All I've done is point out your error and your grotesque exaggeration.

you just can't allow yourself to admit that TM committed a crime, can ya ?

I think it's probable he did assault Zimmerman. He was, until his death, not a convicted criminal so it's pretty stupid to call him one and then offer Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt.

But to equate him with a man who killed people, robbed banks and trains, and is generally one of the most famous American outlaws of all time, is the kind of thing that only someone who has swallowed the worst excesses of the right-wing blogosphere - and is pretty stupid to begin with - could do.

to compare Chellew's demise to that of TM is disingenuous at best.

I agree. In Chellew's case his killers were immediately arrested. In Martin's case they could barely be bothered to investigate. Which kind of does suggest that white people get a better deal out of the legal system.

In order for this to be compared to zim/trey case, zim/trey would have had to be gang members, oh and zim would have had to havebeen arrested immediately.

I don't seethe correlation of the two.

Anyone care to explain how this incident is the same as zim/trey's?

I'm not following. Honestly.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

excuse #1

To say that you are uncomfortable with the way Zimmerman acted or the way he was released in no way endorses assault.

sure it does.

excuse #2

Martin may have acted violently against Zimmerman

may have ???
he did and that makes him a criminal for all of eternity.

got any more excuses ???

i never equated the two ... i suggested that those who share your opinion will soon declare that criminals aren't criminals UNLESS they've been tried and convicted and it sure sounds like you are already endorsing such nonsense.

In Martin's case they could barely be bothered to investigate

^^^ that, is a bold-faced lie.
even video proves otherwise.

sure, they didn't operate as YOU would like them to but that's isn't about their failure to perform rather your failure to understand how they perform.

you can keep your racist viewpoint, it doesn't interest me one bit.

Originally posted by Honor93
sure it does.

It simply doesn't. That's a stone cold fact. It's not an "excuse". If you were concerned by the way Nelson Mandela was treated by the South African government it doesn't mean you endorse terrorism, for example. One can protect the rights of people who commit crimes without approving their actions.

This is pretty simple stuff.

may have ???
he did and that makes him a criminal for all of eternity.

Not necessarily. He may have responded to a threat you don't know about. Stop pretending you know exactly what happened.

And Zimmerman must, by your logic, be a criminal also?

i never equated the two ... i suggested that those who share your opinion will soon declare that criminals aren't criminals UNLESS they've been tried and convicted and it sure sounds like you are already endorsing such nonsense.

That's odd, because I constantly hear from Zimmerman supporters that you aren't allowed to call someone a criminal unless they have been tried and convicted. Even if they have previous for beating up policeman and their girlfriends.

sure, they didn't operate as YOU would like them to but that's isn't about their failure to perform rather your failure to understand how they perform.

you can keep your racist viewpoint, it doesn't interest me one bit.

I'm racist for suggesting that they didn't do their job properly? That's an extraordinary claim. It is a matter of record that they failed to properly control the scene or perform the necessary measures. It isn't racist to suggest that. But would they have behaved in the same manner if Martin had been white. Personally I doubt it.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

One can protect the rights of people who commit crimes without approving their actions

yeah so, attorneys do it every day.
but this isn't about disapproving of actions, this is about law.

bad example btw, Mandela has nothing to do with either case.

yeah, it sure is pretty simple stuff.
you don't approve of Zs actions.
marvelous, you don't approve ... that still doesn't make his actions illegal, unlawful or criminal.

not so surprisingly, you make no mention of how Mr Chellew could be alive today, if only he had taken similar action.
so, would you support Mr Chellew if he had been able to shoot his attackers ?

it's obvious that Mr Chellew's murder could have been prevented.
if he had shot his attackers would you still disapprove ??
would you still support the idiots that would call for his head on a platter ?
would you label him a "murderous criminal" also ?

He may have responded to a threat you don't know about.

what threat ?
a stranger with a flashlight and a question ?
so, if that stranger with light and a question also wore a uniform and TM jumped him ... would you say the same ???

here's one for ya, what if Z didn't live there and was simply looking for an address ??
would TM still have good reason to jump the guy for following him ??
like you said, we weren't there so quit surmising what 'could' have happened and stick with what was revealed at trial.

the State couldn't prove it and neither can you.
(and i'm pretty sure they have many more resources than you)

nope, Zimmerman didn't commit a crime of which i'm aware.
that old song and dance doesn't swing with me.
try again.

no, your racist viewpoint isn't something i'd care to explore.
it is what it is and it's yours to resolve.
have fun with that.

who are you to suggest that your failure to understand equates to their failure to perform ??

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


No, in the Martin/Zimmerman case, the victim was Zimmerman. Assaulted, injured, and alive only because he exercised his rights.

Almost all of what you've written there is not established fact. Just your opinion. And tenuous at that.

Anyway, it's irrelevant. The context of the OP is designed to imply that people only got worked up about the Martin case because of race. This is untrue - people got worked up because Zimmerman wasn't charged and the police investigation seemed cursory to the point of negligence. They surmised that there might be a racial background to this and to Z's actions but the key point that made this news was his release.

Since all the (black) perpetrators are in prison already with no bail in the Chellew case, it actually supports rather than diminishes the notion that Zimmerman got favourable treatment because of his colour and that of the victim.

No, everything I stated is proven in a court of law, based on evidence and witness statements (including State witnesses). It isn't tenuous at all. It's also a fact that this case was only made a case because of race. Had martin been white, we would never have heard about it.

The police investigated, and determined self defense. People all up in arms because the person killed was a certain color aren't respecting the right of self defense. Why should someone not defend themselves, simply because an attacker looks a certain way? The point of this thread is that most of the country isn't hearing about that case, or MANY others, that happen regularly, when there is real violence based on race, and the victims are white. If you really aren't aware of those, I could link you to story after story after story.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

No, everything I stated is proven in a court of law, based on evidence and witness statements (including State witnesses). It isn't tenuous at all.

It isn't proven at all. Even some of the jurors admit it's tenuous. The only thing that was "proven" was that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

It is not proven that Zimmerman didn't start the fight with Martin and it certainly isn't proven that he is only alive because he killed Martin - indeed how could it be?

It's also a fact that this case was only made a case because of race. Had martin been white, we would never have heard about it.

I agree. Had he been white there's no way they would have let George go straight away.

The point of this thread is that most of the country isn't hearing about that case, or MANY others, that happen regularly, when there is real violence based on race, and the victims are white.

But this thread shows that when white people are shot the police arrest the other guys and put them in jail straight away. It is evidence for the thesis that the Zimmerman handling operated along racial lines.

If you really aren't aware of those, I could link you to story after story after story.

Okay. Link me to a story where a black guy shot a white kid and they let him go on the night of the shooting before they had determined the kid's identity.

Originally posted by Honor93

yeah so, attorneys do it every day.
but this isn't about disapproving of actions, this is about law.

The law does it every day. People who behave in a manner you find reprehensible still have rights. And one can believe in those rights while still condemning their actions.

bad example btw, Mandela has nothing to do with either case.

So? It's called an analogy. You were saying that everyone who had misgivings about the handling of the case was endorsing the right to assault people. I say this is absurd, just as one might support Mandela on his anti-apartheid stance and still not endorse his terrorism.

yeah, it sure is pretty simple stuff.
you don't approve of Zs actions.
marvelous, you don't approve ... that still doesn't make his actions illegal, unlawful or criminal.

What has this got to do with anything?

not so surprisingly, you make no mention of how Mr Chellew could be alive today, if only he had taken similar action.
so, would you support Mr Chellew if he had been able to shoot his attackers ?

it's obvious that Mr Chellew's murder could have been prevented.
if he had shot his attackers would you still disapprove ??
would you still support the idiots that would call for his head on a platter ?

It's an entirely different case so my reading of it would be different. What it does seem to show is that when white people get shot their attackers get put in jail quickly.

would you label him a "murderous criminal" also ?

Also? As well as who?

what threat ?
a stranger with a flashlight and a question ?
so, if that stranger with light and a question also wore a uniform and TM jumped him ... would you say the same ???

You don't know that Zimmerman didn't physically threaten Martin. The court merely said that it couldn't be proven that he had or hadn't. So you don't know why Martin attacked and you should stop pretending that you do, just like you should stop pretending he was trespassing.

here's one for ya, what if Z didn't live there and was simply looking for an address ??
would TM still have good reason to jump the guy for following him ??
like you said, we weren't there so quit surmising what 'could' have happened and stick with what was revealed at trial.

Advice you would do well to heed. The trial didn't reveal every facet of the encounter, or even attempt to find the truth about it. It simply answered the narrow question of whether there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. There was not, but that doesn't mean the same as proving he didn't attack Martin, or do anything wrong. That remains an unknown.

nope, Zimmerman didn't commit a crime of which i'm aware.
that old song and dance doesn't swing with me.
try again.

Of which you're aware. Nobody knows what led up to the altercation or who started it. As you admit.

no, your racist viewpoint isn't something i'd care to explore.
it is what it is and it's yours to resolve.
have fun with that.

You have accused Martin all along of committing crimes in the run up to the altercation (something even the police disagree with you on, by the way), of "skulking" around, of "trespassing" - all with no evidence except that he was black. And I'm the racist?

who are you to suggest that your failure to understand equates to their failure to perform ??

edit on 27-7-2013 by Honor93 because: typo

You keep saying this, but I understand the investigation fully and they definitely failed to complete it correctly. This is a very bad thing as it may have meant Zimmerman going to jail needlessly. It's not something you should support, anyway.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
It isn't proven at all. Even some of the jurors admit it's tenuous. The only thing that was "proven" was that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

It is not proven that Zimmerman didn't start the fight with Martin and it certainly isn't proven that he is only alive because he killed Martin - indeed how could it be?

It wasn't proven that Zimmerman committed ANY crime, which is why he walked. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard, and that doesn't change based on the color of your attacker. That martin confronted WAS proven, by his own friend. Seriously, watch the trial footage, and see for yourself.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesIt's also a fact that this case was only made a case because of race. Had martin been white, we would never have heard about it.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I agree. Had he been white there's no way they would have let George go straight away.

Nonsense. He would have been released, because it would still be self defense. I think you dropped a card there.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesThe point of this thread is that most of the country isn't hearing about that case, or MANY others, that happen regularly, when there is real violence based on race, and the victims are white.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
But this thread shows that when white people are shot the police arrest the other guys and put them in jail straight away. It is evidence for the thesis that the Zimmerman handling operated along racial lines.

The cases vary. If it's clear self defense, the person isn't charged. If it's clear murder, they are charged. Color has nothing to do with it, and a lot of people need to stop pretending it does, and using it as an excuse for bad behavior. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman operated along racist lines, and even the F.B.I. stated that, quite clearly. NONE. All this is simply people playing victim and trying to excuse mob behavior.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes If you really aren't aware of those, I could link you to story after story after story.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Okay. Link me to a story where a black guy shot a white kid and they let him go on the night of the shooting before they had determined the kid's identity.

You link to a case of actual self defense, with a black victim and a white assailant, where the black person as charged. Determining the name of an attacker isn't a reason to arrest their victim for defending themselves.

I can, as I stated, show page after page after page of whites being attacked by blacks, for their skin color.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


It wasn't proven that Zimmerman committed ANY crime, which is why he walked. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard, and that doesn't change based on the color of your attacker. That martin confronted WAS proven, by his own friend. Seriously, watch the trial footage, and see for yourself.

I'm aware of the situation regarding what was and wasn't proven. The stuff you claimed - that Zimmerman was the victim of unprovoked aggression and that he would have died had he not killed Martin - remains speculation. You should learn the difference between the state not proving something and it definitely not happening.

Explain to me how you can know that Martin would have killed Zimmerman. This is not just impossible in the context of the information available at the trial, it is literally logically impossible.

Nonsense. He would have been released, because it would still be self defense. I think you dropped a card there.

You're welcome to your opinion. But I don't share it, because I don't think black people get the benefit of the doubt as easily as whites in the US. You can call that "dropping a card", but ironically the thread you're posting in seems to back up my point.

The reason people were angered by the Martin shooting had to do with the perception that because Martin is black the investigation assumed his guilt and exonerated Zimmerman in the briefest and most perfunctory way. It had little to do with white on black violence, so all these equivalencies you try to draw ("why don't they get annoyed when blacks shoot each other? "why don't black racial crimes receive coverage?") are largely irrelevant.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

The cases vary. If it's clear self defense, the person isn't charged. If it's clear murder, they are charged. Color has nothing to do with it, and a lot of people need to stop pretending it does, and using it as an excuse for bad behavior.

Look at the statistics. Black people are around three times less likely to get the benefit of the doubt when they employ a self defence argument. Your system that you are pretending works so well is inherently prejudiced.

You link to a case of actual self defense, with a black victim and a white assailant, where the black person as charged. Determining the name of an attacker isn't a reason to arrest their victim for defending themselves.

So you can't find one, I guess. As I say, the system doesn't let black people go the way it did with Zimmerman. That's why your search for cases of "actual self defence" with black people on whites is less likely to be successful because the system is less liable to describe blacks as, er, defending themselves.

It may be that you think this is because black people are inherently less likely to actually be defending themselves. It's either that or the authorities are biased against them. Which would you go for?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

and that's where you are mistaken.

it has been proven, via the autopsy.
we've been here before, remember ?

there is -0- evidence that Zimmerman EVER struck Trayvon.
hence, Trayvon initiated physical contact or "started the fight" as you said.
that has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

And one can believe in those rights while still condemning their actions.

yeah so, why must you rewrite the same sentiment rather simply 'agree' ???
oh yeah ... that would mean you have nothing left to argue, so nevermind.

your analogy doesn't apply.

You were saying that everyone who had misgivings about the handling of the case was endorsing the right to assault people

not quite.
i said and i still say that anyone who supports the contention that "trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong" DOES support assault upon intial contact and that's the truth.

What has this got to do with anything?

Everything.
Zimmerman's actions were not illegal, unlawful or criminal, period.
Trayvon's actions were and those brought forth his demise.

my reading of it would be different

clueless is as clueless does.

sure we do.
a physical threat with what? a mini flashlight.
Trayvon had -0- defensive wounds, hence Z did not physically assault TM in any manner.

The 'court' never said any such thing.

he was trespassing and that could be one of the reasons why Z called NIN in the first place.

here's some advice you would do well to heed.
keep your hands to yourself and advise all others to do the same.

it was revealed who committed a physical assault and that wasn't Zimmerman.
your unwillingness to accept it is not my problem.

clearly you didn't listen to the testimony, review any evidence or formulate your opinion based on the facts available.
until you have, we have nothing further to discuss.

so yes, if the shoe fits, wear it until the (sole) soul fails.
[yes, the mis-spelling was intentional]

i don't dispute that the investigation was handled poorly. i told you previously the Z/M case had everything from tainted evidence to potential jury tampering ... if you were following along, you'd already know this.

however, this thread isn't about Z/M, the investigation, how it was handled or anything related to the trial so why are you harping on it in this thread ?

the question is ... why is the Chellew MURDER less important (media attention and all) than the other case ?

because murder isn't the same as self-defense.
nor is it processed the same.
and, it is a shame that you simply don't understand that.