Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

[quote name='Msut77']Non answer.

The "other side of the story" was shot dead.[/QUOTE]


Very true. And that's a shame.

But I refuse to believe that all the "facts" have been laid out. I mean just today it was released that their was a "john doe" witness.

No one, including myself is denying that Zimmerman killed Martin. What is important is the circumstancial evidence and again I refuse to believe that all of that has been laid out yet.




Also you left "suspiciously shoddy police work" off your quasi rant.


It's looking less "Shoddy" to me now.

They interviewed Zimmerman who has never been charged with a crime, they interviewed several witnesses including one who said:

'The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: "Help, help… and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,' he said.

Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater; Martin was in a grey hoodie.
He added: 'When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.'


^ This wasn't a de facto interview
 
Nice use of "facts". You talk out of both sides of your mouth and at this point there isn't any doubt you are running interference for those who just want to sweep this under the rug and let zimmerman walk.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Nice use of "facts". You talk out of both sides of your mouth and at this point there isn't any doubt you are running interference for those who just want to sweep this under the rug and let zimmerman walk.[/QUOTE]


Running interference? what?

Unlike others I don't think guilt should be cast by those that yell the loudest. That is what is happening in this case. Let the system play out.

Unless you think the cops, the courts, the justice system, is all racist... oh wait you do.


Damn I wish we were all around during something like the Duke Lacrosse Scandal so I could listen to all you jokers yelling and screaming about racism and back door deals and shoddy police work only to find out you were just another puppet getting excited about nothing.
 
The system did play out so to speak. It wasn't until the family (who you are maligning) made a stink that the case was for all intents and purposes looked into.


Running interference? what?

Look it up. You know exactly what you are doing.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']They interviewed Zimmerman who has never been charged with a crime[/QUOTE]

This is not true. Back to the drawing board.

And :lol: to claiming that the Daily Mail is a good paper and a reliable resource because it's British. Wanna cite The Sun next, mate?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is not true. Back to the drawing board.

And :lol: to claiming that the Daily Mail is a good paper and a reliable resource because it's British. Wanna cite The Sun next, mate?[/QUOTE]


My mistake; as you know or will soon find out I make many typos and spelling errors and have horrible grammer.


I know Zimmerman was "charged" with a crime; what wanted to say was that he has never been found guilty of a crime.

I don't think I said the "Daily Mail" was a good paper; I think I said (you can double check for me) that it was the most neutral and informative (as well as comprehensive) article I've read to date.

I then stated that I like how it focused more on facts and less on race
 
To say it is neutral because it does not focus on race is the exact location where we will disagree vehemently. Implying that mentioning race, systemic bias against certain races, or the presumption of the criminal threat of the young black male in our society disrupts neutrality? I'd say you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Ahahahaha...the Daily Mail.

A few points here:
- The 911 tapes have been released.
- Looks like you're only concerned with Black People that do "Bad Things."
- Romney and Santorum made comments too, but I don't see you harping on them.
- Playing "the race card" only means that they're playing the hand that they were dealt.
- Saying that people are playing the race card is white people-speak for using their own version of the race card, which means that they know full well that there's a valid argument there, but are too ignorant to counter it.

Since you brought up civil disobedience, I'm curious as to how you feel about the Civil Rights Movement. Or do you think that those negros should've stopped acting uppity and just accept the natural order?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To say it is neutral because it does not focus on race is the exact location where we will disagree vehemently. Implying that mentioning race, systemic bias against certain races, or the presumption of the criminal threat of the young black male in our society disrupts neutrality? I'd say you couldn't be more wrong.[/QUOTE]


uh huh. So you are comfortable saying that if A) Trayvon was white or B) if he wasn't wearing a hoodie then George Zimmerman wouldn't have pursued him?

Or lets pretend that George Zimmerman and the unnamed witness were telling the truth and this was self defense... are you claiming that George Zimmerman wouldn't have "stood his ground" and shot the other party had they been non black?

Because only if the above were to be true then and only then would race be the biggest issue.

But it's not the biggest issue despite what you and the media want everyone to believe.

The biggest issue here is gun control and the stand your ground law.

If George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun Trayvon would still be alive. If Flordia didn't have a "stand your ground" law George Zimmerman would have been arrested.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Ahahahaha...the Daily Mail.

A few points here:
- The 911 tapes have been released.
- Looks like you're only concerned with Black People that do "Bad Things."
- Romney and Santorum made comments too, but I don't see you harping on them.
- Playing "the race card" only means that they're playing the hand that they were dealt.
- Saying that people are playing the race card is white people-speak for using their own version of the race card, which means that they know full well that there's a valid argument there, but are too ignorant to counter it.

Since you brought up civil disobedience, I'm curious as to how you feel about the Civil Rights Movement. Or do you think that those negros should've stopped acting uppity and just accept the natural order?[/QUOTE]


Right... so it is responsible to put a bounty on George Zimmerman's head? And if a member of the New Black Panthers acts out "eye for an eye" justice then they should face no consequence correct? Because it was definitely "A Time To Kill".


And stop painting a picture with such a broad stroke. Your generalizations are so immature....


Because people don't view the world in two colors doesn't mean they are in favor of oppression.


I'm well aware racism exists. I'm well aware racists exist in every shape and form.


But because I disagree with the role that race played in this crime doesn't mean I'm racist; it only means that you are ignorant.



Playing "the race card" only means that they're playing the hand that they were dealt.


^ That's a gem. Show me the mainstream article or quotes from activists who are upset over gun control laws or the stand your ground law as it pertains to this case? I'd be interested to read Al Sharpton's views on gun control and the stand your ground law... surely he must be on record discussing them since afterall that is a major part of this story... I mean we all know it's not as big of a a contributing factor to Trayvon's death as him being black or wearing a hoodie... but still
 
[quote name='GBAstar']uh huh. So you are comfortable saying that if A) Trayvon was white or B) if he wasn't wearing a hoodie then George Zimmerman wouldn't have pursued him?

Or lets pretend that George Zimmerman and the unnamed witness were telling the truth and this was self defense... are you claiming that George Zimmerman wouldn't have "stood his ground" and shot the other party had they been non black?[/QUOTE]

What he is saying is that Zimmerman would have been detained, the family would have been notified and we wouldn't have people smearing the kid and making excuses for the aggressor if the kid in question were white.

The hoodie thing is just a stupid distraction and not worth engaging.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What he is saying is that Zimmerman would have been detained, the family would have been notified and we wouldn't have people smearing the kid and making excuses for the aggressor if the kid in question were white.
[/QUOTE]

And if things had played out exactly the same, assuming the victim was white would the outrage be the same?


[quote name='Msut77']
The hoodie thing is just a stupid distraction and not worth engaging.[/QUOTE]


Agreed
 
[quote name='GBAstar']uh huh. So you are comfortable saying that if A) Trayvon was white or B) if he wasn't wearing a hoodie then George Zimmerman wouldn't have pursued him?[/quote]

Far more a than b, but absolutely. absolutely. recall the patterned conflation of young + black + male with "criminal" such that Zimmerman found him suspicious in the first place. Couple that with the 9-1-1 recordings where Zimmerman uses coded racial language, saying "these assholes always get away." Later on he drops the code and breatlessly refers to "fucking coons." So yeah, I imagine you'll find that I'm going to argue that someone who calls people "fucking coons" is a racist, and that if you disagree, you are wrong.

Or lets pretend that George Zimmerman and the unnamed witness were telling the truth and this was self defense... are you claiming that George Zimmerman wouldn't have "stood his ground" and shot the other party had they been non black?

Pursuing someone is not "stand[ing] your ground."

The biggest issue here is gun control and the stand your ground law.

If George Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun Trayvon would still be alive. If Flordia didn't have a "stand your ground" law George Zimmerman would have been arrested.

The sequence of events suggests that Zimmerman's behavior didn't even meet the lax standards in place via the SYG law. If the Sanford police followed proper procedure (arrests typically follow these killings, even if charges are not filed later), did not attempt to correct witness statements in order to impose their side of the story in legal proceedings (Martin's girlfriend's account), and had not made statements about the sequence of events that were not contradicted by the 9-1-1 calls, then yeah, we can talk about SYG. It's an important conversation to be had.

Ignoring the influence of race here is to ignore the society we live in. It's to think that some kind of "color-blind" society in which everybody is judged based on their achievements, and not their race - it's not only attainable, it's the world we live in now. And that's an astonishingly off-the-mark notion. To ignore the race effect is to pretend that Trayvon was a white dude in a Hollister hoodie, he'd be dead, too. And to think that makes you as wrong as you could be.
 
Man, I think one of the worst things to happen to the human race is internet comment. The willful bliss of only kinda knowing how racist, unforgiving and down right murderous people are is completely shattered by reading any comments about virtually anything.

Granted people seem to gain huge amounts of balls when they know they are almost completely hidden in internet obscurity but god damn...."If you look at Treys facebook page you would know that he is nothing but a thug that has been in trouble all his life. Not saying the murder was just but he deserved to die anyway"

Waaaaaaaa?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Implying that mentioning race, systemic bias against certain races, or the presumption of the criminal threat of the young black male in our society disrupts neutrality? [/QUOTE]
There is a systemic bias against certain races because certain races are disproportionately violent and criminal. The presumption of the criminal threat of the young black male depends on context of the situation. You don't deny a qualified black man a job at your firm based on the color of his skin, but your anti-racist beliefs may go out the window when you are in a bad part of town at a gas station at 2AM based on personal experience and statistics. A smart person will size up threats accordingly. Jesse Jackson knows this. Ask him.

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.

People already do this of course, even self-professed liberals who preach tolerance and diversity like its a mantra. They move out to the suburbs and use local government to essentially enact obstacles to keep the riff-raff out. They may know one or two black families that are the "good ones" but they don't live in or go to black neighborhoods. They don't go lunch in Compton (I have). They don't go shop in Watts. They don't go to festivals in South Los Angeles (I have). When the local transit agency wants to bring light rail through their neighborhood, progressivism and environmentalism go out the window because the train line might bring "those people" to the neighborhood and change its character. They then use environmental justice laws to block environmentally friendly projects. I've been to the meetings. I've heard it myself. These are white democrats. These are the same people who probably go online and tell me I'm a racist.

Also, major shooting in Mississippi this weekend. Police want to talk to three black males fleeing the scene in a Crown Victoria. Their victim has died from his injuries. I had to visit perhaps 10 different news sites just to piece together this information. Where is Jesse Jackson to encourage the suspects to turn themselves in? Why does he not call on the families and friends of the suspects to give any possible information? People talk. Why is Jesse Jackson not calling for an investigation to find out exactly what happened. Where is the Justice Department? Failing Jackson's involvement, could a white leader make these demands?

[quote name='Soodmeg']
Granted people seem to gain huge amounts of balls when they know they are almost completely hidden in internet obscurity but god damn...."If you look at Treys facebook page you would know that he is nothing but a thug that has been in trouble all his life. Not saying the murder was just but he deserved to die anyway"
[/QUOTE]It's funny that you mention this. I was looking at some of the comments on the Mississippi story and some people are already speculating that it was a drug deal gone wrong, and if so, Sanderson deserved what he got. So it turns out *possible* white thugs are discriminated against too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']but your anti-racist beliefs may go out the window when you are in a bad part of town at a gas station at 2AM based on personal experience and statistics.[/QUOTE]

As someone who has spent more time in "bad parts of town" than most, yeah, you're right. It is foolish to pretend that the chance of being a victim isn't higher in some places than in others. But a suspicious dude is a suspicious dude - because you're *in* the bad part of town, not because they are black.

You're using the environment to justify racism, rather than recognizing that, if you're in a bad part of town at 2AM, you should be universally suspicious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're using the environment to justify racism, rather than recognizing that, if you're in a bad part of town at 2AM, you should be universally suspicious.[/QUOTE]This is the kind of wonderful idealism that just doesn't reflect the reality of what actually goes on in society.

Yeah, you're right, when I'm out and about I'll be equally on the lookout for white Neo-Nazis gangs that are roaming the streets out there and killing half-breeds like myself (my parents did race-mix, after all, so I'm a target for such groups). Maybe you can tell the third shift worker taking the bus in South LA to be EQUALLY on the lookout for murderous whites roaming the area and then chastise them for being meanie racists if they disagree.

I mean, God, the statistics are right here in black and white, published for anyone to see: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

The results are alarming for anyone who understands proportionality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']There is a systemic bias against certain races because certain races are disproportionately violent and criminal.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA...yeah...nothing racist here!

The presumption of the criminal threat of the young black male depends on context of the situation.
ORLY?

You don't deny a qualified black man a job at your firm based on the color of his skin,
Happens all the time, especially if they have an "ethnic" name.

but your anti-racist beliefs may go out the window when you are in a bad part of town at a gas station at 2AM based on personal experience and statistics. A smart person will size up threats accordingly. Jesse Jackson knows this. Ask him.
This has nothing to do with being around black people and more about being in a bad neighborhood period. Eventhough I broke your paragraph apart, all of it culminates into a screed about how black people tend to be more prone to criminality because they're black and because of "black culture" as if some white communities, especially those that are low on the economic scale, don't have the same types of social problems. And since they DO, it'd be obvious to anyone with a bit a of reasoning can safely assume that the race of the person has less to do with crime than with economic status.

People already do this of course, even self-professed liberals who preach tolerance and diversity like its a mantra. They move out to the suburbs and use local government to essentially enact obstacles to keep the riff-raff out. They may know one or two black families that are the "good ones" but they don't live in or go to black neighborhoods. They don't go lunch in Compton (I have). They don't go shop in Watts. They don't go to festivals in South Los Angeles (I have). When the local transit agency wants to bring light rail through their neighborhood, progressivism and environmentalism go out the window because the train line might bring "those people" to the neighborhood and change its character. They then use environmental justice laws to block environmentally friendly projects. I've been to the meetings. I've heard it myself. These are white democrats.
It has less to do with being a democrat and has more to do with being white, but you already knew that right? Of course you did. You just wanted to rant about "democrats" and "liberals."

These are the same people who probably go online and tell me I'm a racist.
There are lots of ways that racism reveals itself. You just choose to use methods that are much more overt than others. Or would you like a medal for going into Compton and South LA as proof of your lack of racism?

Also, major shooting in Mississippi this weekend. Police want to talk to three black males fleeing the scene in a Crown Victoria. Their victim has died from his injuries. I had to visit perhaps 10 different news sites just to piece together this information. Where is Jesse Jackson to encourage the suspects to turn themselves in? Why does he not call on the families and friends of the suspects to give any possible information? People talk. Why is Jesse Jackson not calling for an investigation to find out exactly what happened. Where is the Justice Department? Failing Jackson's involvement, could a white leader make these demands?
Maybe because Jackson deals more with civil rights issues? Would you ask Bill Cosby to perform a root canal because he's a doctor? How is this a serious question?

It's funny that you mention this. I was looking at some of the comments on the Mississippi story and some people are already speculating that it was a drug deal gone wrong, and if so, Sanderson deserved what he got. So it turns out *possible* white thugs are discriminated against too.
Funny how no one here is saying that, so why don't you argue with those people about it instead.

[quote name='Spokker']This is the kind of wonderful idealism that just doesn't reflect the reality of what actually goes on in society.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHA...as if you think you have a clue?

Yeah, you're right, when I'm out and about I'll be equally on the lookout for white Neo-Nazis gangs that are roaming the streets out there and killing half-breeds like myself.
This explains sooooo much about you. You must pass for white. That said, I am now more than comfortable calling you a comletely racist shitbag.

Maybe you can tell the third shift worker taking the bus in South LA to be EQUALLY on the lookout for murderous whites roaming the area and then chastise them for being meanie racists if they disagree.
You don't seem to understand the concept of "context" that you so elegantly put earlier or else you'd understand why this is a stupid example.

I mean, God, the statistics are right here in black and white, published for anyone to see: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

The results are alarming for anyone who understands proportionality.
For someone that likes to use statistics, you sure don't know anything about disaggregating numbers.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Happens all the time, especially if they have an "ethnic" name.[/quote]If it happens all the time, and I have an ethnic name and I have applied for many jobs, then I suppose I have experienced racism. I guess I qualify to whine and demand entitlements over it.

This has nothing to do with being around black people and more about being in a bad neighborhood period.
The fundamental issue on the micro scale is information asymmetry in interactions with strangers. If we are strangers and interact, I know my own criminality but I do not know anything about your own criminality unless I use prior information. The stranger, too, knows his own criminality but does not know mine.

Certain kinds of discrimination in this context is socially acceptable, such as the recommendation that women be more vigilant around men. Those who advocate this approach may point to statistics on the criminality of men versus women, and they are probably right. But if they point to statistics on young black males to support their increased vigilance, they would be deemed racists.

Of course, we have the advantage of discussing these things online and the analysis is far less rigorous in the moment.

Eventhough I broke your paragraph apart, all of it culminates into a screed about how black people tend to be more prone to criminality because they're black and because of "black culture" as if some white communities, especially those that are low on the economic scale, don't have the same types of social problems. And since they DO, it'd be obvious to anyone with a bit a of reasoning can safely assume that the race of the person has less to do with crime than with economic status.
The single greatest predictor of criminality in a neighborhood is the racial mix. When you control for income, poor white neighborhoods have less crime than poor black neighborhoods. Your assertion is fundamentally false.

We can also take a cursory glance at some of the poorest and heavily Hispanic border towns that are also some of the safest in the nation. A different but good example local to me is the heavily Hispanic City of Santa Ana, which is the most dangerous city in Orange County, CA according to locals. However, that city's crime rate pales in comparison to the typical city with a large poor and black population. It's not a city with a bunch of geniuses running around either.

http://www.areavibes.com/library/10-cities-lowest-crime/

It's a small miracle that Santa Ana managed to make this list given the horrific educational system and low graduation rates. Did you know that only 49% of people living in Santa Ana have actually graduated 8th grade and only 43% have graduated high school? Let's just say that there aren't many people in Santa Ana going on to complete the doctorates degree, 0.2% in fact. Having said that, the property crime rate in Santa Ana is 34% less than the national average. It could be that the residents of Santa Ana just aren't smart enough to mastermind a successful pick-pocket.

Other metrics put Santa Ana more or less at the average crime rate for California. This is despite heavy discrimination and hate generated toward Latinos as has been claimed recently (I don't claim this). You have a hard time finding these results in any city considered a heavily black city. I think there are some neighborhoods where this could be achieved.

It has less to do with being a democrat and has more to do with being white, but you already knew that right? Of course you did. You just wanted to rant about "democrats" and "liberals."
You don't rant about conservatives? I rant about both.

Or would you like a medal for going into Compton and South LA as proof of your lack of racism?
If the fucking issue is economic disparity, going to these places and spending your money there would help a fucking lot. Or are you that disingenuous?

Maybe because Jackson deals more with civil rights issues? Would you ask Bill Cosby to perform a root canal because he's a doctor? How is this a serious question?
Bill Cosby offered his views on the subject and he wasn't taken seriously. What makes Jesse Jackson more of an expert? What makes either of them more of an expert than fucking black PhD economists who rarely ever get any play from the mainstream media? You want to talk about discrimination? Let's look at how liberals completely ignore conservative or libertarian black scholars.

This explains sooooo much about you. You must pass for white. That said, I am now more than comfortable calling you a comletely racist shitbag.
You reveal your true colors.

For someone that likes to use statistics, you sure don't know anything about disaggregating numbers.
Not sure what you are referring to specifically here. We can refine the numbers all we want until we feel better about ourselves.

I have read that half of the white-black gap in homicide rates would be erased if blacks were given the same structural characteristics of whites. I buy that. What happened to the other half?

On a side note, the same study concluded that if Hispanic whites were given the same structural characteristics as non-Hispanic whites, their crime rate would actually be lower than non-Hispanic whites. :hot:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']If it happens all the time, and I have an ethnic name and I have applied for many jobs, then I suppose I have experienced racism. I guess I qualify to whine and demand entitlements over it. [/QUOTE]
Your lack of awareness doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or effects people any less. Ignoring it and gritting your teeth doesn't help either.

The fundamental issue on the micro scale is information asymmetry in interactions with strangers. If we are strangers and interact, I know my own criminality but I do not know anything about your own criminality unless I use prior information. The stranger, too, knows his own criminality but does not know mine.
Wut.

Certain kinds of discrimination in this context is socially acceptable, such as the recommendation that women be more vigilant around men. Those who advocate this approach may point to statistics on the criminality of men versus women, and they are probably right. But if they point to statistics on young black males to support their increased vigilance, they would be deemed racists.
The reason why it's racist to think that black males are more prone to being criminals has less to do with them being more prone to crime and more to do with how we enforce laws. Again, assuming that black people have a greater propensity to commit crimes is racist. Or more specifically, who we decide to give more attention to. I shouldn't need to explain this to a fucking adult.

Of course, we have the advantage of discussing these things online and the analysis is far less rigorous in the moment.
Surely, you jest!

The single greatest predictor of criminality in a neighborhood is the racial mix. When you control for income, poor white neighborhoods have less crime than poor black neighborhoods. Your assertion is fundamentally false.
You wish it was false so you can justify your racism. Poor black communities enjoy more attention from law enforcement than poor white ones and it's not for over-abundance or lack of crime that determines it.

We can also take a cursory glance at some of the poorest and heavily Hispanic border towns that are also some of the safest in the nation. A different but good example local to me is the heavily Hispanic City of Santa Ana, which is the most dangerous city in Orange County, CA according to locals. However, that city's crime rate pales in comparison to the typical city with a large poor and black population. It's not a city with a bunch of geniuses running around either.

Other metrics put Santa Ana more or less at the average crime rate for California. This is despite heavy discrimination and hate generated toward Latinos as has been claimed recently (I don't claim this). You have a hard time finding these results in any city considered a heavily black city. I think there are some neighborhoods where this could be achieved.
You know, it's almost if different ethnic groups are treated differently and experience systemic racism in different ways!

You don't rant about conservatives? I rant about both.
Ha! You don't rant about both with the same gusto. If I bitch about Clinton sexually harrassing his subordinates, it doesn't make it equal to the venom I spew at conservatives any more than the opposite holds true for you.

If the fucking issue is economic disparity, going to these places and spending your money there would help a fucking lot. Or are you that disingenuous?
Spending $20 for tip on a meal might help for an afternoon, but unless EVERYONE DOES EVERYDAY, then no, it won't help anymore than someone winning $100 million in the lotto. For someone that bitches about proportionality, you have difficulties applying the concept to various scenarios.

Bill Cosby offered his views on the subject and he wasn't taken seriously. What makes Jesse Jackson more of an expert? What makes either of them more of an expert than fucking black PhD economists who rarely ever get any play from the mainstream media? You want to talk about discrimination? Let's look at how liberals completely ignore conservative or libertarian black scholars.
Bootstraps is not an answer and those black conservative non-intellectuals don't get any play because they pick and choose what supports white supremacist arguments instead of looking at the issues holistically. When we're all equal and not burdened by centuries of slavery and oppression, they can bitch about bootstraps all they want, but as long as discrimination based on race exists, then they have no standing.

You reveal your true colors.
Yeah, I tend to call people out on their racism. That must've been a huge revelation to you. Or maybe you should've gone with the classic "you're the REAL racist because you're the one that sees race" or "libberals are supposed to be tolerant, but you're not very tolerant of my intolerance!"

Not sure what you are referring to specifically here. We can refine the numbers all we want until we feel better about ourselves.
What was that thing you're saying about context again?

I have read that half of the white-black gap in homicide rates would be erased if blacks were given the same structural characteristics of whites. I buy that. What happened to the other half?
If the rates were cut in half, DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU THAT THERE'S SOMETHING AMISS? And maybe you should explain your math instead of saying half this or half that.

On a side note, the same study concluded that if Hispanic whites were given the same structural characteristics as non-Hispanic whites, their crime rate would actually be lower than non-Hispanic whites. :hot:
Asians have even less, so what's your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']A 17 year old male in the US in 2012 without a facebook page? That's headline news right there.[/QUOTE]

Content.Is.King.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Zimmerman stalked Martin and more than likely tried to unlawfully detain him. If there's anyone that acted in self defense, it was Martin because he was lawfully in the area and was literally walking home after buying his younger brother some skittles. Zimmerman was the aggressor.[/QUOTE]


says you....
 
None of it concrete evidence. All is assumed at this point, but the bottom line is if 911 says gtfo and let the police take care of it, let the police take care of it. It's a terrible thing that happened.
 
I think then outrage is more because he is till walking around free. The problem is that t looks like the police didnt even try to solve what happend. They just took his word for it and sent him on is way.

At the very least if you kill someone we all except them to go into holding for a while until the evidence is collected. Again I don't know how murders even get caught of they can just claim self defense ad not have t come up again for a month.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']None of it concrete evidence. All is assumed at this point, but the bottom line is if 911 says gtfo and let the police take care of it, let the police take care of it. It's a terrible thing that happened.[/QUOTE]
It's a fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin and attempted to confront him. Since Zimmer was the aggressor because of the stalking, it would put Martin on the defensive. When Martin bolted, and rightfully so, Zimmerman pursued him. These are all facts backed up by Zimmerman's 911 call.

[quote name='DurbanBrown']yeah its a tragic story... dont think zimmerman is a racist though[/QUOTE]
Just because Zimmerman might not full-on hate black people, his bias against black people by thinking that they must be criminals, or else he wouldn't have attempted to stop Martin, is what leads people to that conclusion...unless you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that wearing a hoodie with the hood on in the rain qualifies as suspicious behavior.
 
Yeah, people have this dumbass notion that you have to hate a racial group to be racist.

That's blatant racism for sure, but subtler forms of racism like the criminalblackman stereotype are what lead to things like this as black people outside of black neighborhoods are viewed with suspicion. Especially young black males, and especially if they dress a certain way, have dreads or cornrows etc.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't think it's necessarily racist to say something like that. I think it's pretty idiotic though.[/QUOTE]
Say what? That black people, especially men, tend to be criminals? How is that not racist without racist roots?
 
Threads like this prove to me that even with an education, some people are still really, really stupid.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Yeah, you're right, when I'm out and about I'll be equally on the lookout for white Neo-Nazis gangs that are roaming the streets[/QUOTE]

So, the score on your end:

- black people in poor communities are all potential criminal and worthy of suspicion.
- white people in poor communities must be avowed Neo-Nazis to be worthy of suspicion.

Are you a blithering idiot, or is this just a really lousy strawman?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No. The 'have to hate a racist group to be racist' part. I should've quoted that part.[/QUOTE]
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? It still wouldn't make any difference if you quoted it because it still doesn't make any sense. Stop being vague and just spit it out.
 
It's a fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin and attempted to confront him. Since Zimmer was the aggressor because of the stalking, it would put Martin on the defensive. When Martin bolted, and rightfully so, Zimmerman pursued him. These are all facts backed up by Zimmerman's 911 call.
I've listened to the 911 call, and it seems like what anyone would do if they saw someone suspicious in their neighborhood (other than the fact that Zimmerman seems like a paranoid schizophrenic). If I saw someone I knew wasn't from my neighborhood walking around at night in the rain I would be suspicious as well. How far was Zimmerman from his car when Martin was shot? Which direction was he headed when he shot Martin? I just still have questions that I am sure will never be answered (simply because only the murderer is living).
Just because Zimmerman might not full-on hate black people, his bias against black people by thinking that they must be criminals, or else he wouldn't have attempted to stop Martin, is what leads people to that conclusion...unless you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that wearing a hoodie with the hood on in the rain qualifies as suspicious behavior.
I really don't think that's it. He doesn't even say he's black on his own, the dispatch officer asks him and at first he says "He looks black". It isn't until a minute into the call that he confirms he's black.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Huh? What the hell are you talking about? It still wouldn't make any difference if you quoted it because it still doesn't make any sense. Stop being vague and just spit it out.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying people who think 'you have to hate a racial group to be racist' are idiots first. Being an idiot doesn't mean you're racist.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']So is Zimmerman's statement on the 911 tapes, "fucking coons," not racist?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, he probably saw a raccoon and was just making a comment.
 
Apparently authorize and trying to demonize Martin by leaking that he was suspended from school for pot.
Or just trying to show the entire picture, like when we were told that Zimmerman had called the PD 46 times previously, or that he had an assaulting an officer charge dropped against him 6 years prior to shooting Martin.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I've listened to the 911 call, and it seems like what anyone would do if they saw someone suspicious in their neighborhood (other than the fact that Zimmerman seems like a paranoid schizophrenic). If I saw someone I knew wasn't from my neighborhood walking around at night in the rain I would be suspicious as well.[/QUOTE]
Assuming that you live in a neighborhood like Zimmerman, feel free to google maps it, so you think that you know ALL of your neighbors? And if you listened to the tapes like you say you did, then you know that there's a fuckload of shit that's coming out of Zimmerman's mouth that isn't making a lot of sense. You can hear the Zimmerman get out of his car to go on a foot chase. One can safely assume that he was following Martin before the actual call. If Martin's alleged girlfriend's phone records match up with Martins, we can get a pretty clear time frame of how it all went down.

We can also safely assume that he decided to pursue Martin on foot before he said "those assholes always get away."

But even before all that, we know for a fact that schizophrenia can project itself as racist behavior and if he DOES have a clinical case of schizophrenia, it would mean that he's even more dangerous than we already know.

How far was Zimmerman from his car when Martin was shot? Which direction was he headed when he shot Martin? I just still have questions that I am sure will never be answered (simply because only the murderer is living).I really don't think that's it. He doesn't even say he's black on his own, the dispatch officer asks him and at first he says "He looks black". It isn't until a minute into the call that he confirms he's black.
I'm pretty sure there are answers to the first two questions. As for dispatch, he asks if Martin is white, black, or Hispanic. Looking black could mean that he's possibly Hispanic with a dark complexion.

[quote name='KingBroly']I'm saying people who think 'you have to hate a racial group to be racist' are idiots first. Being an idiot doesn't mean you're racist.[/QUOTE]
They can be racists at the same time they're idiots. One doesn't take priority over the other in your example especially when those that espouse it here tend to lean both ways equally.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Or just trying to show the entire picture, like when we were told that Zimmerman had called the PD 46 times previously, or that he had an assaulting an officer charge dropped against him 6 years prior to shooting Martin.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck does it show the whole picture? That Martin deserved to be shot because he got suspended for having a small baggy with weed residue? Are we to assume that he's a drug dealer/user and that's why he was casing houses, which is why he looked suspicious to Zimmerman? Or that he was going to be a drug dealer when he grew up anyways so it's a good thing that he's dead?

Or maybe it doesn't matter one iota because there were no drugs found on or in Martin.

edit: And people of every socio-economic stripe use weed, which makes it even more irrelevant.
 
bread's done
Back
Top