ot; trayvon martin

User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 16, 2013 - 7:07am

guns. self-defense. 2nd am. neighborhood watch, guns make us safer, racial profiling.

I think I could sum up the piggingtonian positions, but not sure on this case...

and etc...

as michael moore said, "if trayvon martin had been white and george zimmerman had been black--do I even need to finish that sentence?"

Submitted by paramount on July 19, 2013 - 1:08pm.

Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 19, 2013 - 1:35pm.

Jazzman wrote:
Don't confront people bigger than you especially if you think they may have criminal intent. That's what the police are for. Then you won't need to carry a firearm. Look where it leads.

Maybe the lesson, based on the state of affairs is to follow the NRA's advice and get a gun. If someone follows you, shoot first because you fear for your life. If you look smaller and less threatening, you can get off.

Women can get rid of their husbands by claiming self defense. I can think of any number of scenarios where people could get away with murder.

Submitted by mike92104 on July 19, 2013 - 2:21pm.

UCGal wrote:
mike92104 wrote:
i too think Zimmerman profiled Martin, but not racially. I think any young man wandering around the neighborhood in the rain at 2am is odd and suspicious.

How about a young man walking home from 7/11 at 7pm. (not 2am).
That's the actual timeline.
You're right, I had my facts wrong. At that point it would be a matter of Trayvon's actions, and it's hard to know exactly what Zimmerman saw, or felt was suspicious.

Submitted by paramount on July 19, 2013 - 4:19pm.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Well, if those are the only options.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 19, 2013 - 5:18pm.

paramount wrote:
Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Paramount: While I don't disagree that Obama & Co. are undoubtedly welcoming this as a distraction, I will personally say that I found his remarks very sincere and made in the spirit of unity.

Given the off-the-cuff nature of the remarks, it was even more impressive. I don't have much love for the man, especially due to his policies, but he was a national leader in that speech.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on July 19, 2013 - 5:42pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
paramount wrote:
Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Paramount: While I don't disagree that Obama & Co. are undoubtedly welcoming this as a distraction, I will personally say that I found his remarks very sincere and made in the spirit of unity.

Given the off-the-cuff nature of the remarks, it was even more impressive. I don't have much love for the man, especially due to his policies, but he was a national leader in that speech.

I agree with this basically.
- He was very careful not to stake out a position with regard to the trial outcome while appearing to at least sympathize with family and show that he wasn't pleased with the outcome.
- In a gentile way perhaps it was probably a big heads-up to the folks still race-baiting that there is no way the DOJ can bring a Civil Rights lawsuit against Zimmerman. It's been show over and over the guy isn't a racist and no sense wasting everyone's time yet again.

I might have preferred him to mention more about this being a nation of laws, having our day in court, etc. But he didn't.

That said there is a lot of mumbling out there about this weekend, if there does happen to be some smash and grab violence/vandalism he might be asked why he didn't say more.

As far as the stuff on profiling, I find it's somewhat idiotic for him to mention that, but I also understand he's got to show some street-cred here. Cardiff understands the way the game is played, and right now I am content to give him a pass on this. I think he did enough to say "brothers I am with you in spirit" while at the same time tipping his hat, that this is probably over at the Federal level.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 20, 2013 - 12:19am.

I was really surprised at the positive comments about Obama from all sides. I thought there might be more haterz out there.

Obama is right that it's better with each successive generation. That we can feel good about. I try to keep up and with the younger generations so i have to embrace words such as "haterz."

We will see what the weekend commentators have to say.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 20, 2013 - 6:12am.

CardiffBaseball wrote:

As far as the stuff on profiling, I find it's somewhat idiotic for him to mention that, but I also understand he's got to show some street-cred here. Cardiff understands the way the game is played, and right now I am content to give him a pass on this. I think he did enough to say "brothers I am with you in spirit" while at the same time tipping his hat, that this is probably over at the Federal level.

I don't think it was idiotic at all. I think it was essential for those who haven't experienced it to understand the context of the reaction of the black community to the Martin killing. It happens every day in this country, probably thousands of times. Black men are stopped by police and others under the color of authority solely because they are black. Purses get clutched a little tighter, car doors get locked when a black man walks by. It happens in Florida, it happens in NYC, it happens in Carmel Valley. It's overt racism, and it's demeaning, demoralizing and insulting.

Submitted by zk on July 20, 2013 - 7:36am.

SK in CV wrote:
It happens every day in this country, probably thousands of times. Black men are stopped by police and others under the color of authority solely because they are black. Purses get clutched a little tighter, car doors get locked when a black man walks by. It happens in Florida, it happens in NYC, it happens in Carmel Valley. It's overt racism, and it's demeaning, demoralizing and insulting.

SK, let's say you live in a country where 99.9% of the people are race A and 0.1% are race B. And 99.9% of the criminals are race B and 0.1% are race A. And you live in a part of town where there are a hundred thousand residents, but there aren't more than 2 or 3 residents who are of race B. You're watching your children play in the culdesac where you live from the upstairs window of your house. A man of race B walks into the culdesac. Are you more anxious about that than if a man of race A walks into the culdesac?

If so, according to your post above, then you're an "overt" racist. Because the only difference between the hypothetical world above and our world is the size of the numbers.

If not, then you are, I would venture to say, lacking common sense.

I agree with CA Renter and Martin Luther King and all the others who say that if black people want to stop being profiled, they should stop committing crimes at the rate they do.

Submitted by NotCranky on July 20, 2013 - 11:00am.

Over empathizing or over sympathizing with a person or group because of race is racism. That's true if it is your own race , which is probably more than half of all racism to go with the overt hate of others. It's also true in the less common but still popular version that some people suffer from to extreme degrees when they apply it to people of other races.

Race neutrality is probably the ideal but we don't live in bubbles so it will never be held 100% by an adult . Some children have it . Mine do, but it will be modified in the future by life experience, not necessarily by bad experiences with other races but by interaction with the topic in society in general.

Anyway, the over -sympathizers are swinging on the racism pendulum like anyone else . They are just on the opposite extreme of the arc from the haters.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 20, 2013 - 8:30am.

zk wrote:

SK, let's say you live in a country where 99.9% of the people are race A and 0.1% are race B. And 99.9% of the criminals are race B and 0.1% are race A. And you live in a part of town where there are a hundred thousand residents, but there aren't more than 2 or 3 residents who are of race B. You're watching your children play in the culdesac where you live from the upstairs window of your house. A man of race B walks into the culdesac. Are you more anxious about that than if a man of race A walks into the culdesac?

Except that's not the country we live in. Roughly 15% of the population has black skin. The vast majority of them are not criminals.

When I lived in Carmel Valley, I lived on that cul de sac. There weren't any black families living on the street while I lived there, but there were some in the neighborhood. One of them played in my son's band. They practiced in my music room for about 6 years. By the time they all got their driver's licenses, my driveway was filled with cars every weekend. Despite the horrible sound coming from my house, the neighbors were very nice, none of them ever complained. But twice the police showed up. Both times following a suspicious black kid driving through the neighborhood. Both times they questioned him for 10 or 15 minutes about what he was doing in the neighborhood in which he lived. Never happened with any of the white kids, despite the fact that a few of them didn't live anywhere near our neighborhood.

Now you might claim that the police were just doing their job, investigating suspicious behavior. But the important thing here is not whether you think it was the appropriate thing to do. The important thing, and this is what Obama was talking about, is the effect of these kinds of events on black teenagers and black men. This kid wasn't doing anything wrong, he was simply living his life exactly the same as his 5 or 6 bandmates were doing. The only difference is that for a black kid, living his life, exactly the same as his white friends is suspicious behavior. Driving down the street is suspicious behavior. And it is in this context that the reaction to the Martin shooting arose.

Neither this kid, nor his parents, who lived right around the corner from me, have any control over what happens in other neighborhoods. They can't stop the gang activities in other parts of town. And neither should they be targets of law enforcement or community watchdogs because of what happens elsewhere. But they are. So when I hear these BS arguments that black leaders are "making it a racial thing", my skin crawls. They aren't "making it a racial thing". It IS a racial thing. They live with it every single day.

Submitted by zk on July 20, 2013 - 9:07am.

SK in CV wrote:

Except that's not the country we live in. Roughly 15% of the population has black skin. The vast majority of them are not criminals.

If you lived in the hypothetical would I described, would you "profile" a member of race B?

If you would in that world, but not in ours, then it's a matter of numbers. How much more likely would a member of race B have to be to commit a crime than a member of race A before you'd "profile" them? And would you expect everybody to draw the line in the same place that you draw it?

Submitted by dumbrenter on July 20, 2013 - 9:34am.

SK in CV wrote:
CardiffBaseball wrote:

As far as the stuff on profiling, I find it's somewhat idiotic for him to mention that, but I also understand he's got to show some street-cred here. Cardiff understands the way the game is played, and right now I am content to give him a pass on this. I think he did enough to say "brothers I am with you in spirit" while at the same time tipping his hat, that this is probably over at the Federal level.

I don't think it was idiotic at all. I think it was essential for those who haven't experienced it to understand the context of the reaction of the black community to the Martin killing. It happens every day in this country, probably thousands of times. Black men are stopped by police and others under the color of authority solely because they are black. Purses get clutched a little tighter, car doors get locked when a black man walks by. It happens in Florida, it happens in NYC, it happens in Carmel Valley. It's overt racism, and it's demeaning, demoralizing and insulting.

Nicely put. Did not vote for this president, but I think the speech was good and he did his bit to present the black perspective and frustrations just as you have done above.

It is demeaning and insulting, no question about that. But is it racism? Or some kind of primeval or tribal self preservation that makes people do that? If we want folks to understand the context, the frustration, may I suggest that calling them racists is not a good way to start?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 20, 2013 - 9:38am.

more than one perspective can be correct. there can be truth in everyone's position.

facts are fluid.

Submitted by zk on July 20, 2013 - 9:48am.

dumbrenter wrote:
But is it racism? Or some kind of primeval or tribal self preservation that makes people do that?

There's another possibility. Maybe it's a logical reaction to the fact that black people commit crimes at a much higher rate than white or Asian people.

Submitted by NotCranky on July 20, 2013 - 11:20am.

squat300 wrote:
more than one perspective can be correct. there can be truth in everyone's position.

facts are fluid.

s

"Facts are fluid":

I doubt the veracity of that .Facts are only fluid when people imagine or contrive what they don't know or won't accept.
Do we want facts to be fluid or malleable(convenient truths)? I see more of the later going on....some of it seems very shallow.

Submitted by ctr70 on July 20, 2013 - 11:10am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
paramount wrote:
Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Paramount: While I don't disagree that Obama & Co. are undoubtedly welcoming this as a distraction, I will personally say that I found his remarks very sincere and made in the spirit of unity.

Given the off-the-cuff nature of the remarks, it was even more impressive. I don't have much love for the man, especially due to his policies, but he was a national leader in that speech.

I think a lot of what Obama said in his recent speech was more BS and blame shifting. Saying "that he could have been TM 35 years ago". And that he's been racially profiled. Continues to ignore the fact that a jury of 6 believed that TM jumped Zimmerman, pounded his head in the concrete to the point where GZ shot him in self defense. THAT IS WHAT A JURY OF 6 CONCLUDED! End of story. End of speculation. There is ZERO proof of any racial profiling. ZERO. Would have Obama 35 years ago also jumped someone and pounded their head in the concrete? I highly doubt it. Those comments to me continue to follow the black leaderships long history of shifting of blame for their behavior off themselves on to someone else.

Submitted by outtamojo on July 20, 2013 - 12:21pm.

Getting off topic a little but I'm curious how much of this "logic based" profiling that is so acceptable (I'll assume you are dangerous because almost everyone that looks like you is dangerous)carrries over when it comes to hiring- or does it magically disappear when one reaches the office?

Submitted by zk on July 20, 2013 - 1:10pm.

ctr70 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
paramount wrote:
Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Paramount: While I don't disagree that Obama & Co. are undoubtedly welcoming this as a distraction, I will personally say that I found his remarks very sincere and made in the spirit of unity.

Given the off-the-cuff nature of the remarks, it was even more impressive. I don't have much love for the man, especially due to his policies, but he was a national leader in that speech.

I think a lot of what Obama said in his recent speech was more BS and blame shifting. Saying "that he could have been TM 35 years ago". And that he's been racially profiled. Continues to ignore the fact that a jury of 6 believed that TM jumped Zimmerman, pounded his head in the concrete to the point where GZ shot him in self defense. THAT IS WHAT A JURY OF 6 CONCLUDED! End of story. End of speculation. There is ZERO proof of any racial profiling. ZERO. Would have Obama 35 years ago also jumped someone and pounded their head in the concrete? I highly doubt it. Those comments to me continue to follow the black leaderships long history of shifting of blame for their behavior off themselves on to someone else.

The arguments you make based on the jury's decision are not valid.

The jury took into consideration all the evidence and all the laws. They decided (we'll assume for the sake of argument that they concluded correctly) that GZ was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. That doesn't mean that there is ZERO proof of any racial profiling. It doesn't mean anything except that, under Florida law, he's not guilty of murder 2 or manslaughter. It doesn't mean end of story or end of speculation, either. There are a lot of variables that certainly could be discussed regardless of GZ's technical guilt or innocence under Florida law.

Submitted by zk on July 20, 2013 - 1:21pm.

outtamojo wrote:
Getting off topic a little but I'm curious how much of this "logic based" profiling that is so acceptable (I'll assume you are dangerous because almost everyone that looks like you is dangerous)carrries over when it comes to hiring- or does it magically disappear when one reaches the office?

I don't think that's off-topic at all.

I think it's logical and reasonable to profile out on the street when you don't know someone. You base your appraisal on what you see. I see a black and a white with identical clothes, body language, posture, facial expressions, hair style (wait, maybe not hair style), etc on the street. I'll admit I'm more wary of the black guy. Unless maybe they're both gangster-looking guys, in which case I'm significantly more wary of the black guy, figuring the white guy is probably more a wannabe whereas the black guy is probably the real deal. If the black guy is wearing a suit and the white guy looks mean, I'll be more wary of the white guy. I could go on and on, but there are a thousand shades of gray, here. The point is, that I don't know these guys. I've never met them or heard them speak. That's the reason I'm profiling them. I've got my daughter with me, and I'll make sure nothing happens to her whether it means "demeaning, demoralizing and insulting" someone or not. That just seems like common sense to me.

For a job interview or anytime you meet another person, you can (or should be able to) tell far more about them in the first 15 seconds than their skin color will ever tell you. Skin color should almost immediately disappear completely as an issue. Unless you're a racist.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on July 20, 2013 - 2:09pm.

SK in CV wrote:
CardiffBaseball wrote:

As far as the stuff on profiling, I find it's somewhat idiotic for him to mention that, but I also understand he's got to show some street-cred here. Cardiff understands the way the game is played, and right now I am content to give him a pass on this. I think he did enough to say "brothers I am with you in spirit" while at the same time tipping his hat, that this is probably over at the Federal level.

I don't think it was idiotic at all. I think it was essential for those who haven't experienced it to understand the context of the reaction of the black community to the Martin killing. It happens every day in this country, probably thousands of times. Black men are stopped by police and others under the color of authority solely because they are black. Purses get clutched a little tighter, car doors get locked when a black man walks by. It happens in Florida, it happens in NYC, it happens in Carmel Valley. It's overt racism, and it's demeaning, demoralizing and insulting.

God Bless you, you are a saint, fighting the good fight and telling us all how wrong it is. Great, wonderful. Now, what the fuck does that have to do with the George Zimmerman case, that the leader of the free world sees fit to bring it up, rather than bore us with stuff like how we as Americans accept the rule of law, american judiciary system etc. etc. None of that.

Now, if I seem harsh let me say this, I don't BLAME Obama for saying it. Sure the logical side of me says it's idiotic because he's using the Zimmerman case as a platform to tell us how wrong it is to profile.... When there was zero evidence of racial profiling.

However, I am not that mad about it, like I said "Cardiff understand how the game is played"

Obama has to use this opportunity to earn street cred. Play along and Imagine for a second if he walked out on the White House Lawn and said "Sorry the DOJ will not be filing any Civil Rights Lawsuit against George Zimmerman since extensive background investigations concluded this action was not motivated by race."

He would be raked over the coals by the leftist black leaders. With this speech he comes out in full support, and appears to be with them in spirit and wisely doesn't answer questions. Marches will go on all day, everyone lets off a little steam, and Monday we all go back to work.

Only the logic side of me says it's idiotic because the context to make the statement is lacking. As a matter fact the entire outrage about this incident is frankly so stupid it defies all sense of reason. It's if people were itching for a fight. Don't try to compare Trayvon to riding in the backs of buses or using alternate water fountains, it's not gonna fly. Most non-blacks I talk to the White-Guilt meter is on empty.

Submitted by paramount on July 20, 2013 - 2:14pm.

Isn't racism more about behavior than skin color?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 20, 2013 - 2:49pm.

Cardiff: Now, imagine for a second you're a second-term president and that you're beset on all sides with a variety of problems, both domestic and foreign policy related. Your strategy is not only being called into question by your opponents in the GOP, but erstwhile allies in your own party.

Your approval numbers are sinking, you're facing the admittedly difficult implementation of your signature piece of legislation (which is highly unpopular with the populace at large) and you're heading into the mid-terms where a lackluster base is the norm and not the exception.

How would one fire up a key segment of that base? A key segment that self-identifies with this particular president based on race?

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on July 20, 2013 - 3:38pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Cardiff: Now, imagine for a second you're a second-term president and that you're beset on all sides with a variety of problems, both domestic and foreign policy related. Your strategy is not only being called into question by your opponents in the GOP, but erstwhile allies in your own party.

Your approval numbers are sinking, you're facing the admittedly difficult implementation of your signature piece of legislation (which is highly unpopular with the populace at large) and you're heading into the mid-terms where a lackluster base is the norm and not the exception.

How would one fire up a key segment of that base? A key segment that self-identifies with this particular president based on race?

There is that. No sense talking about Ben Ghazi, IRS, Snowden, NSA, TSA snooping. Answering no questions is wise at this point.

Submitted by creechrr on July 20, 2013 - 10:44pm.

ctr70 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
paramount wrote:
Obama enters the discussion, no doubt in part to deflect attention from Benghazi and other issues.

Paramount: While I don't disagree that Obama & Co. are undoubtedly welcoming this as a distraction, I will personally say that I found his remarks very sincere and made in the spirit of unity.

Given the off-the-cuff nature of the remarks, it was even more impressive. I don't have much love for the man, especially due to his policies, but he was a national leader in that speech.

I think a lot of what Obama said in his recent speech was more BS and blame shifting. Saying "that he could have been TM 35 years ago". And that he's been racially profiled. Continues to ignore the fact that a jury of 6 believed that TM jumped Zimmerman, pounded his head in the concrete to the point where GZ shot him in self defense. THAT IS WHAT A JURY OF 6 CONCLUDED! End of story. End of speculation. There is ZERO proof of any racial profiling. ZERO. Would have Obama 35 years ago also jumped someone and pounded their head in the concrete? I highly doubt it. Those comments to me continue to follow the black leaderships long history of shifting of blame for their behavior off themselves on to someone else.

The speech was merely an explanation of how an African-American's perception of the case or life in general could be different than that of the average Anglo. I heard no judgement or criticism in the speech. Please listen again with an open mind.

I believe it all comes down to distrust. Yes, times have changed significantly in many parts of the country but, memories are long.

One of the posters above recounts the hassles one of his kid's friends. I can tell you from experience that interaction breeds distrust and disgust. I had a discussion about this at work with co-workers the other day and my co-workers seemed to be shocked that I and another "black guy" were fearful/distrustful of the cops based on our personal experiences. If the shoes were on the other foot for a day I think most of you would be appalled.

Today I'm 37 and I don't touch anything I don't have to when I'm in a store. I stay in the middle of the isle and try to stay in clear view of cameras. I do this mainly to reduce the chances of an accusation of some sort of wrong doing being leveled at me because the accusation alone can be more than enough.

Sadly, I teach my sons to do the same. We're not criminals, far from it but, there's always the chance that we could be held responsible for the perceptions of others.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 20, 2013 - 11:04pm.

Where you stand depends on where you sit.

Which truth is most useful? Which most just?

Which seems most to accord with what I think I perceive around me today.

Which truth makes me feel better?

Which truth justifies me?

Which facts shall I marshal and which shall I ignore.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 21, 2013 - 9:20am.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"

why do black males commit crimes at higher rates?

according to the national geographic this month, racism may come ultimately from our love of sugar...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 21, 2013 - 9:26am.

squat300 wrote:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"

why do black males commit crimes at higher rates?

Scaredy: Daniel Patrick Moynihan had some very poignant and very prescient thoughts on this, along with his views on the damage that race- positive (versus race-neutral) government policies would cause.

We destroyed the black family and with it the black community and created a permanent and pernicious underclass.

Sadly, this, along with politicians (both GOP and Dem) wanting to be perceived as strongly in support of "Law & Order" policies, like mandatory sentencing and Three Strikes, has criminalized an entire segment of our society.

For the record, I still think it's about class and not just race.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 21, 2013 - 10:40am.

Juries never find any particular truth.

The only question they answer is whether doubt exists and whether the doubt is reasonable.

Jury might think Zimmerman attacked Martin, but have some doubt, and acquit.

It is only ever about doubts, uncertainties and reasonable possibilities....

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on July 21, 2013 - 10:55am.

squat300 wrote:
Juries never find any particular truth.

The only question they answer is whether doubt exists and whether the doubt is reasonable.

Jury might think Zimmerman attacked Martin, but have some doubt, and acquit.

It is only ever about doubts, uncertainties and reasonable possibilities....

Scaredy: ALL juries, or simply those involved in criminal cases?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.