George Zimmerman, race and the NAACP

[Syphon]

Ilosar, I too think he should be given some kind of charge. Maximum penalty on as many charges as you could find, which wouldn't be much. Obstruction of justice, disorderly conduct (for leaving vehicle against advice), something ... I mean 'cmon world, that dude needs atleast 6 months in county man!

 

[TheWesDude]

nope

martins mistake was leaving his house with intent to confront zimmerman.

if he had not done that, there would have been no altercation, and he would not have been killed. and the juror who spoke out agrees with that assessment.

that is why he was innocent. and that is why a wrongful death would not qualify. martin started the fight when he got home safely without any issue or confrontation from zimmerman.

 

[Tagaziel]

martins mistake was leaving his house with intent to confront zimmerman.

if he had not done that, there would have been no altercation, and he would not have been killed. and the juror who spoke out agrees with that assessment.

that is why he was innocent. and that is why a wrongful death would not qualify. martin started the fight when he got home safely without any issue or confrontation from zimmerman.

Proof?

 

[Syphon]

People keep saying that but I haven't seen one article/link that says Martin lost Zimmerman's tail, got on the porch and said "fuck it... I'm going back to kick dude ass?"

If thats the case, Zimmerman IS innocent but someone give a link up because I have no idea where you people are getting your information from.

 

[Tagaziel]

Probably Fox News or Metapedia.

 

[Yamu]

Or The Blaze, or Breitbart. They were all big fans of reporting on how he was found with that "burglary tool" that was really a screwdriver, or "stolen jewelry" that was never actually proven or even reported stolen (I suppose "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to people you like, right guys?), or about how Zimmerman was following Martin because he "matched the description of a local burglary suspect" even though Zimmerman only saw him from a distance, with his hood up, at dusk, while it was raining. It's funny that those so eager to call Martin's credibility into question are always completely mum about Zimmerman lying to police multiple times, changing his story on retelling even more frequently than that, and conspiring with his wife to commit perjury. This is the man whose trustworthiness they base their entire argument on. I'd say that lying to the face of the judge setting your bail and secreting away a second passport while you're under Federal investigation are a little more suspect than smoking a bit of dope and writing "WTF" on a classroom door, but you guys just keep living the dream.

Acquitting him criminally was, legally, the only correct course, but morally, I'm not going to be pleased if he gets off unscathed at a civil trial. I fully support his right to bear arms and even to protect his neighborhood, but as many others in this thread have said, there are responsibilities that go with those rights. He had no place playing vigilante, accosting this kid without identifying himself as any sort of authority figure. After tailing him at length? I would've been edgy enough to try to put the guy's lights out, too, especially if I noticed he was armed. Of course, we'll never really know if that was the case, because he himself (oddly enough) wasn't eager to get up on the stand and clarify his inconsistencies and the only person who can gainsay him is dead.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You're still hung up on deterministic factors, that's way too facile, and ignores the other facets of this issue. There's a lot of failed policy and self-destructiveness in the black community too, can't blame it all on the blue eyed devil. Big disparity between Caribbean and African immigrants vs. black Americans, there's much more going on than the legacy of Jim Crow.

Is there? I'm certainly open to the idea, and I'm not saying that there aren't other factors -- but that whole racial legacy, the fact that blacks enter the world in a disadvantaged position in a relatively immobile society -- that's a pretty big fucking deal.

And most of those differences you cite can be explained by a deterministic facotr, too: they're very recent immigrants, generally arriving with a decent education and with the explicit goal of getting to the United States to better their lives.

Easy for you to say whitebread, do you have some handy kind of Racial Oppresion Scorecard? Who's the biggest loser of the victimhood sweepstakes? WASPs on top Aboriginols on the bottom? Is this like a 1-100 scale, 5 stars, or credits and debits like in accounting. What's the half-life for racial attrocity outrage 10, 100, 1,000 years? Can Babylonians still blame Assyrians for where they're at? Can Carthaginians sue Rome for reparations, don't they deserve some of that tourism cheese?

Sander, it's great you read a book on Jim Crow, but how much time have you spent in the black community?

If you've convinced youself that racist, southern legacy of Jim Crow is the only reason that things are the way they are today, than you are ignoring many of the other aspects of a complicated, multifaceted issue. Take for example how fatherlessness, a domino falling that has vast and far reaching negative consequences, is a direct (though unintended) result of 'helpful' policy.

Maybe there's political capitol to be gained in fostering dependence? I'm not sure that more federal dependence on the gov't is the answer for anyone. If you need to rely on the feds to bail you out, you are already fucked and just don't know it yet. see: Katrina

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni your only argument is that the problem exists. What im trying to do is present and alternate explanation as to WHY the problem exists and you just keep telling me no, look, the problem exists! As if the problem existing is in itself evidence enough for your theory as to why the problem exists.

no, all I am saying is that YOU are a single case while we talk about the biger picture here.

 

[Yamu]

If you've convinced youself that racist, southern legacy of Jim Crow is the only reason that things are the way they are today, than you are ignoring many of the other aspects of a complicated, multifaceted issue

I can't speak for Sander, but I can say that it's plainly apparent upon even a cursory read of the thread that he's never said echoes of Jim Crow are the "only" problem, just a pretty damned big one. Which, I think, can't but be acknowledged by anyone who's being honest with themselves.

Easy for you to say whitebread, do you have some handy kind of Racial Oppresion Scorecard? Who's the biggest loser of the victimhood sweepstakes? WASPs on top Aboriginols on the bottom? Is this like a 1-100 scale, 5 stars, or credits and debits like in accounting. What's the half-life for racial attrocity outrage 10, 100, 1,000 years? Can Babylonians still blame Assyrians for where they're at? Can Carthaginians sue Rome for reparations, don't they deserve some of that tourism cheese?

Um... huh? You don't think it's a bit of a false equivalency to equate wars that happened in pre-Biblical times with a system of oppression whose policies were still in place during the adulthoods of several generations still living today? You don't think it's at all ignorant or disingenuous to dismiss egregious injustice because... well, I'm not sure of the "because." The best I can manage to wring out of what you've said here is "Inescapable, brutal systemic discrimination may have lasted for centuries, but it ended on paper almost two-thirds of an entire human lifespan ago, so get over it." Or is your point that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of decency and social justice as a bunch of backwards imperialists and warmongers whose S.O.P would've made a third-world dictator cringe?

 

[Mad Max RW]

For the people who obviously never watched the trial: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/witness-...ense-attorney-theory-thats-real-retarded-sir/

West asked why Trayvon Martin “decided to approach this man and say ‘why you following me,” when he could have “just run home.”

“He was already by his house,”Jeantel replied. “He told me.”

“Of course, you don’t know if he was telling you the truth or not,” West speculated.

“Why he need to lie about that, sir?” Jeantel asked, skeptically.

West paused for a few seconds, then offered, “Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn’t want you to know about it.”

Also the phone records for Jeantel, Martin, and Zimmerman show there was a 4 minute gap between them. Zimmerman had lost Martin when he was still on the phone with the police operator at the same time Martin was talking to Jeantel. You know what, how about the people who didn't truly pay attention to the trial just leave the discussion.

 

[Yamu]

For the people who obviously never watched the trial: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/witness-...ense-attorney-theory-thats-real-retarded-sir/

West asked why Trayvon Martin “decided to approach this man and say ‘why you following me,” when he could have “just run home.”

“He was already by his house,”Jeantel replied. “He told me.”

“Of course, you don’t know if he was telling you the truth or not,” West speculated.

“Why he need to lie about that, sir?” Jeantel asked, skeptically.

West paused for a few seconds, then offered, “Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn’t want you to know about it.”

Also the phone records for Jeantel, Martin, and Zimmerman show there was a 4 minute gap between them. Zimmerman had lost Martin when he was still on the phone with the police operator at the same time Martin was talking to Jeantel. You know what, how about the people who didn't truly pay attention to the trial just leave the discussion.

Where are you getting that four-minute gap? The phone records released indicate that the phone line between Martin and Jeantel was still open during the minute in which the first 911 call came in about the fight, which is what matters here. Personally, I wouldn't try to sneak up on someone while I was in the middle of a phone conversation, but that's common-sense speculation, not admissible evidence.

Also (and with due respect) I'm not sure how submitting quotes from an inconsistent and badgered witness proves any point. She doesn't do any better for you than she did for the prosecution.

 

[Sander]

Easy for you to say whitebread, do you have some handy kind of Racial Oppresion Scorecard? Who's the biggest loser of the victimhood sweepstakes? WASPs on top Aboriginols on the bottom? Is this like a 1-100 scale, 5 stars, or credits and debits like in accounting. What's the half-life for racial attrocity outrage 10, 100, 1,000 years? Can Babylonians still blame Assyrians for where they're at? Can Carthaginians sue Rome for reparations, don't they deserve some of that tourism cheese?

It's not about blame, about victimhood or about scorecards. It's about honestly evaluating what happened and what effects that still has today -- because you can't understand proper solutions if you don't understand what the problems actually are.

If you've convinced youself that racist, southern legacy of Jim Crow is the only reason that things are the way they are today

I never said it was.

, than you are ignoring many of the other aspects of a complicated, multifaceted issue. Take for example how fatherlessness, a domino falling that has vast and far reaching negative consequences, is a direct (though unintended) result of 'helpful' policy.

And ghetto formation was in part a result of '50s and '60s housing policies. Lots of examples of lots of issues in a complicated, multifaceted topic.

But the fact that there are so many facets and that it's complicated doesn't mean that nearly three centuries of oppression and continuing effects of racism aren't a very, very important factor, here.

Maybe there's political capitol to be gained in fostering dependence? I'm not sure that more federal dependence on the gov't is the answer for anyone. If you need to rely on the feds to bail you out, you are already fucked and just don't know it yet. see: Katrina

Would Katrina have been less of a disaster had there not been federal agencies involved? Local agencies didn't fail?

Sure, sometimes policies fail, sometimes they work. Sometimes the federal government does bad things, too. I'm not sure how that contradicts my views, though. It just seems like a general statement that seems widely applicable, but doesn't actually mean much.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You totally dodged my question about what contact you've had in black communites.

Easy for you to say whitebread, do you have some handy kind of Racial Oppresion Scorecard? Who's the biggest loser of the victimhood sweepstakes? WASPs on top Aboriginols on the bottom? Is this like a 1-100 scale, 5 stars, or credits and debits like in accounting. What's the half-life for racial attrocity outrage 10, 100, 1,000 years? Can Babylonians still blame Assyrians for where they're at? Can Carthaginians sue Rome for reparations, don't they deserve some of that tourism cheese?

Um... huh? You don't think it's a bit of a false equivalency to equate wars that happened in pre-Biblical times with a system of oppression whose policies were still in place during the adulthoods of several generations still living today? You don't think it's at all ignorant or disingenuous to dismiss egregious injustice because... well, I'm not sure of the "because." The best I can manage to wring out of what you've said here is "Inescapable, brutal systemic discrimination may have lasted for centuries, but it ended on paper almost two-thirds of an entire human lifespan ago, so get over it." Or is your point that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of decency and social justice as a bunch of backwards imperialists and warmongers whose S.O.P would've made a third-world dictator cringe?

I can't speak to any of that noise, I was only pointing out the absurdity of comparing and ranking historical racial sorrows. Reparations for Carthange?

 

[Sander]

You totally dodged my question about what contact you've had in black communites.

I haven't. Not in the States, at least. And you just dodged all of my and Yamu's rebuttals.

And surely personal contact gives you a much better power to understand macro issues, right?

Plus, if you want, I can just start citing lots and lots of people who have personal experience who agree with me. I'm sure you can find some of them yourself.

But that won't actually serve for you, because you just use it as a blanket dismissal so that you don't actually have to engage the arguments themselves.

I can't speak to any of that noise, I was only pointing out the absurdity of comparing and ranking historical racial sorrows. Reparations for Carthange?

You were the only one engaging in that in this thread.

 

[Yamu]

Um... huh? You don't think it's a bit of a false equivalency to equate wars that happened in pre-Biblical times with a system of oppression whose policies were still in place during the adulthoods of several generations still living today? You don't think it's at all ignorant or disingenuous to dismiss egregious injustice because... well, I'm not sure of the "because." The best I can manage to wring out of what you've said here is "Inescapable, brutal systemic discrimination may have lasted for centuries, but it ended on paper almost two-thirds of an entire human lifespan ago, so get over it." Or is your point that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of decency and social justice as a bunch of backwards imperialists and warmongers whose S.O.P would've made a third-world dictator cringe?

I can't speak to any of that noise, I was only pointing out the absurdity of comparing and ranking historical racial sorrows. Reparations for Carthange?

I may have gone a bit overboard in my tone there, but that's exactly it: it is a bit absurd to be addressing "historical sorrows." I don't see how it's posible to relegate something that's still exerting far-reaching societal consequences in the present and that didn't even end in actual law (to say nothing of social practices) until half a century ago to the "past." To paraphrase Sander, who made the point far more effectively, it's still a huge part of the problem, it persists in the present, and we need to address and understand it on those grounds rather than shrugging it off. Social inertia is a very slow process.

Also, if it means we can move forward with the discussion, I've lived and mingled in the shittiest, blackest neighborhoods San Francisco, Dallas, and Albuquerque have to offer, and I'll vouch for just about everything Sander has said.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Sander

I haven't. Not in the States, at least. And you just dodged all of my and Yamu's rebuttals.

And surely personal contact gives you a much better power to understand macro issues, right?

Plus, if you want, I can just start citing lots and lots of people who have personal experience who agree with me. I'm sure you can find some of them yourself.

But that won't actually serve for you, because you just use it as a blanket dismissal so that you don't actually have to engage the arguments themselves.

Its one thing to read about a topic, its another thing entirely to have lived it. So yeah, personal experience is a plus, as it is first hand knowledge, given the person also has the ability to weigh in other outside factors.
The fact that you brush that off is suspect.
thanks for the previous post delete BTW

YAMu

Also, if it means we can move forward with the discussion, I've lived and mingled in the shittiest, blackest neighborhoods San Francisco and Dallas have to offer, and I'll vouch for just about everything Sander has said.

I agree as well with many of his points, but as he loves to point out, its a multi-faceted issue. And he has yet to acknowledge any other points other than his own as valid, he merely brushes them off, because they aren't in a case study he is familiar with.

 

[Sander]

Its one thing to read about a topic, its another thing entirely to have lived it. So yeah, personal experience is a plus, as it is first hand knowledge, given the person also has the ability to weigh in other outside factors.
The fact that you brush that off is suspect.

I'm brushing it off because it isn't a valid complaint. I can show you lots and lots of people who have lived it and agree with me. All of the research on this topic isn't based on hot air, and some of it was written by people who personally experienced those issues. Also, what Yamu just said. So you can't really dismiss my views on the subject with that argument -- unless, of course, you weren't actually looking for a valid reasons to ignore me, but rather just a convenient one to justify it.

I'm also brushing it off because it doesn't actually engage any of my arguments. Or Yamu's. Or anyone else's. It's just a blanket dismissal.

I can do blanket dismissals too. Have you seen all the data, and read all the studies? Have you read all the books? Do you understand the full breadth and width of the scholarly and popular debate on this subject? Well how can you have an informed opinion on the entire black community because you personally have had contact with the black community? But that's silly -- I'd just be attacking you rather than your arguments, and I wouldn't even engage those arguments in any way.

Blanket dismissals are useless precisely because they allow the user to ignore any and all statements without actually evaluating the validity of those statements.

thanks for the previous post delete BTW

Vatted it, didn't delete it. Vatted it because it was just a "+1" post with some really, really superficial content in a seven-page thread that has had lots and lots of fairly in-depth discussions. You can't just brush that off by typing your conclusion in ALL CAPS.

I agree as well with many of his points, but as he loves to point out, its a multi-faceted issue. And he has yet to acknowledge any other points other than his own as valid, he merely brushes them off, because they aren't in a case study he is familiar with.

If you go through the thread you'll see me saying the equivalent of "That could certainly be an issue" or "it probably is an issue". So, your contention's simply not true.

But, if you have solid scientific studies pointing different ways, please link them for me.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You totally dodged my question about what contact you've had in black communites.

I haven't. Not in the States, at least. And you just dodged all of my and Yamu's rebuttals.

And surely personal contact gives you a much better power to understand macro issues, right?

It's certainly part of a more comprehensive understanding.

I can't speak to any of that noise, I was only pointing out the absurdity of comparing and ranking historical racial sorrows. Reparations for Carthange?

You were the only one engaging in that in this thread.[/quote]
No, really, when I mentioned the success that other groups like Asians, Caribbeans and Africans immigrants have had, you broke out the racial oppression scorecard and dismissed it. Not me bro.
I mean, shit, I'm not even sure Carthaginian (Punic?) is a race?

 

[Sander]

No, really, when I mentioned the success that other groups like Asians, Caribbeans and Africans immigrants have had, you broke out the racial oppression scorecard and dismissed it. Not me bro.

I explained why I didn't think racial oppression has had as much of an effect on Asians in America as it has on blacks in America, sure. I wouldn't call that using a scorecard or trying to compare the awfulness of historic oppression -- the point is to evaluate what historical circumstances are still affecting groups today.

So can you actually engage that argument on a qualitative level?

 

[SuAside]

So you're saying that if he wasn't armed, it would've somehow been "less bad" for him to tail Trayvon?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Hard to argue there, but I don't agree at all.
What he did was NOT entrapment, and therefore it's fine for me.

Losing sight of him would be disastrous enough for him to put himself in danger, with the possibility of him using a gun becoming real?
Whether or not he could have imagined it, the burden you have when you carry a gun is to go out of your way to avoid the unlikely but possible dangerous situations.

People that concealed carry are ALWAYS at a possibility of having to use their gun, Sander. That's in part why they're carrying. To be able to act when necessary.

Most of them get through life without ever having to draw on anyone, but others are not quite to lucky.
But you can't avoid any and all threats, especially if you're trying to protect others.

That is a mischaracterization of what actually happened. The jurors found that there was reasonable doubt that prevented them from finding him guilty of manslaughter or murder.

That is far from the same as saying that they found Zimmerman's side of the story to be completely correct. All they found was reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's account. They effectively made no judgments at all as to Zimmerman's account, only that it provided reasonable doubt.

Well, that's not what an interview with a juror said, but fine. I'll grant you thatone.

No one was attacking concealed carry permit holders in general. In fact, in this thread, few people were even attacking Zimmerman's character.

Again, we're making the observation that for you this appears to be about concealed carry rights. That's not really relevant as to the correctness of what you're saying, but it does mean that a lot of what you're arguing is kind of sideways to the debate everyone else is having.

You argued that attacking Zimmerman's character was perfectly fine, but that investigating Trayvon's character wasn't.
You also argue that Zimmerman lacked sense and moral responsibility since he supposedly willfully placed himself in a situation where he'd have to use his gun.

If those aren't attacks on his character, I do not know what is. I bring forward statistically relevant evidence, and suddenly I'm arguing besides the issue? Well, thanks.

yes, and then situations like those pop up, where civilians face situations, that are best left to a cop, because those people are usually trained for such cases and should, as this is their profession, know how to handle the situation, in the best case, arresting the person eventually without killing either the criminal nor putting them self in danger. For example a police officer usually never really follows a suspect alone, which is what Zimmerman did, and he got in a situation which a police officers might had a chance to deal with, without using any weapons. As said, he is a civilian with a gun doing the job of cops.

I mean I am the only one who sees this if not as something terrible, but at least as somewhat questionable?

I mean you have to keep in mind what Tagz is saying here, we are talking about a situation where a person was shoot, gunned down, killed, he is dead.

The cops weren't there. And no, he wasn't doing the cop's job. He was doing what he was legally allowed to do as a civilian to keep his neighborhood safe?

In a perfect world, that would not be necessary, but newsflash guys, this isn't a perfect world.

What ever if that leaves you or others, that have the feeling it was Zimmermans "right" cold about, it doesn't change the fact that this boy had a family too, what ever if he was a thug or criminal, but now, maybe if a cop would have arrested him, who knows, he might have reflected about what he did, if he did something wrong, giving him a chance to turn his life for the better. I always thought this is something important, giving people chances to redeem themself and change their way of life. Now this chance is completely forfeit. And thats a tragedy.

Stop appealing to emotion. It doesn't change anything to the situation. Of course, it's bloody sad that someone died. But that doesn't change anything.

As for his second chance, he already got one before...

But even there, does it really matter how many chances he got? As far as we can know, he was shot in justified & lawful self-defense. It doesn't really matter if he was Steve Urkel or Frank Lucas.

Oh, you mean it's totally not relevant to Zimmerman's character and not relevant to Sander's comments about how carrying a gun means carrying an extra burden and responsibilities?

You think it's relevant. Explain.

As said before, statistically, Zimmerman is highly unlikely to have had malicious intent. Is it proof? No. Is it relevant? Yes, since his character is under attack.

Have you even followed the damn trial? At all? Have you watched the stream? The experts? The testimonies?
What exactly am I ignoring here? Please enlighten me by quoting the information and the source from the court case.

Actually, the burden of proof is still on you, since you're consistently claiming this is a clear cut case with a black/white division of roles. You have failed to produce evidence to back these claims up.

Oh boy here we go... "No, YOU!"
Start off by watching the recordings of the damn trial, maybe. That'd be brilliant.
And stop turning everything I've said into hyperboles. Maybe read what is said, instead of reading what you think is said.

Life is an unalienable right, as outlined by the U.S. Declaration of Independence. By your logic, the right to arm bears is more important than right to life.

What? No. The right of Zimmerman to defend his own life from an assailant trumps the assailant's right to live.
Pretty simple logic. You forfeit your own rights when you trample on those of others. Your freedom & rights end where they infringe on mine.



I am now going to retreat from this argument, since we're not getting anywhere anyway. Our opinions about this are argued from different frames of reference, both in perceived happenings AND in morals/ethics/rights.
Please do not jump me while I'm retreating, I might have to shoot you.