DescentBB

vision wrote:The obvious point is.......... suck it up and prove you are above the crybaby antics. .

are you willing to say the same thing about a person of color?????? if not then you are part of the problem.. Racism exists as long as people continually make it an issue.

CUDA wrote:Racism exists as long as people continually make it an issue.

Yes!

Note that this includes divisiveness of all kinds, whether it's a minority assuming racism from the majority (as Will has gone to great pains to portray), or whether it's a majority assuming racism from the minority (as I have pointed out).

CUDA wrote:

vision wrote:The obvious point is.......... suck it up and prove you are above the crybaby antics. .

are you willing to say the same thing about a person of color?????? if not then you are part of the problem.. Racism exists as long as people continually make it an issue.

CUDA, the words vision wrote before your selective quote are important....."if you are sick of the sympathy being directed toward black people...". Sympathy is not a problem, resentment of sympathy is a problem. Color is irrelevant. Human decency is the issue.

Will Robinson wrote:Either discredit my 'assumptions' and/or demonstrate the cause for my delusion or....maybe you need to give my theory more thought than just dismissing it out of hand.

Right here:

Will Robinson wrote:Juror B29 ultimately decided to ignore her instincts to go for maximum, unfounded punishment and delivered an acquittal that she says was/is correct. No other juror wanted to go for Murder 2, only the minority juror. That is according to her interview, not any assumption.
Then she felt guilty for doing what she knew was the right thing! That's quite a bit different than violent. And I believe that is a sign of the conflict between her wisdom and her programming.

You took a juror's statement about her belief about what happened vs. reasonable doubt, and applied your "minorities are programmed" lens to it.

The internal conflict she described was, "this is what I think happened, but I was legally bound by reasonable doubt".

You, however, are interpreting it as, "here's what I'm programmed to think, but I fought the programming to make the right decision". You can claim to be reading-between-the-lines, but you have zero basis for that.

vision wrote:The obvious point is, if you really gave a crap about rage mongering and agitation you wouldn't start a thread with a racial slur, regardless of your race.

Considering the threads main point hinged on the words "creepy assed Cracka" in a number of ways you would. So according to you, to prove my empathy to blacks, I should have refered to it as "the C word"....oops, that won't work
But just how much empathy do you really have if you are going out of your way to tell black people you think they are not ready to be completely equal?!?

The whole concept of saying N word instead of ★■◆● is wrong. I understand the genisis of the use. The sentiment that it represents and that part of it was commendable, in its time, and it still has a place around young children but with adults it is a little self aggrandizing and more important the overall effect is harmful. It feeds right into establishing the narrative that blacks are hypersensitive.

We don't say the R word for racist, etc we either talk about the word racist or we don't. We either level the accusation of racist or we don't.
So either talk about the word ★■◆● or don't. Call some one a ★■◆● or don't.
But stop implying that black people need to be dealt with a little more cautiously because they are extra sensitive!

If a racial slur and its use is the subject of the topic don't be afraid to say it. And if it is also catchy title by all means use it.
Or don't if you fear being chastised by some white boy who will seize every opportunity to confuse the definitions of bigotry with racism so he can call you a racist in defense of black people that he assumes are offended! That he presumes to speak for!

I can tell you out here in the real world we, as in white and black people, have been having fun with 'Cracka' for decades! And lately we have added the 'creepy' modifier with great results. No black people have complained. So come on! Are you my Cracka? Huh? Are you? You my Cracka? No?!? Cracka puhlease....!

vision wrote:Not only does it put people on the defensive and make you look unsophisticated, it doesn't do anything to help your image as a racist on this forum.

Yea I'm so sure you wouldn't be calling me racist in every thread you could if I had beat around the bush on the title

Here's a clue for you. I don't give a crap if some dweller of the inter tubes thinks he knows my heart and soul because some other dweller calls me names. I live in the real world where you can meet me and know me for real.
This place is a conversation with semi strangers. I don't have a need to please you, I'm just here to engage you and compare thoughts. You are the guy who has a need to call me a racist...I get that. I'm ok with that,

I'm the guy who isn't afraid to call a small pointy shovel a spade....even if a black person is around. I trust the black person can figure out if I'm trying to make an insult or if I'm talking about the little shovel.
That doesn't make me special but it does sometimes allow me to observe the real person inside as they struggle with their instincts and programming.

vision wrote:I understand you are tired of all the sympathy towards people of color, but suck it up and prove you are above the crybaby antics.

No you don't. You dont know that at all. You just assigned that position to me so you could then make some argument to challenge your own fabrication. I think that fits the definition of the Straw Man argument.

vision wrote:It is embarrassing that a white person is complaining about the after effect of a court battle where another "white" person was served properly in the judicial system. Not guilty isn't enough for you? You want Mr and Mrs Martin to personally apologize for raising a black child too? Ridiculous and childish.

And there is the argument you wanted to make against me instead of recognizing it isn't anything to do with sympathy that I've been talking about!
It isn't anything about how the Martins raised Trayvon. I have no insight to how that went. I do have insight into how external forces likely misshaped a critical part of Trayvons character though.
Oops there I go delving into all that you worked so hard to avoid! Sorry about that my Cracka.

Will Robinson wrote:...how the Martins raised Trayvon. I have no insight to how that went. I do have insight into how external forces likely misshaped a critical part of Trayvons character though.

There it is again.

It's one thing to say you have insight into external forces which "program minorities" (debateable, but let's assume for now you have some unusually-accurate knowlege of minority culture).

It's quite another to blindly apply that to people (e.g. a defendant whose background you admittedly don't know anything about, a juror you don't know based only on a statement about doubt, etc.).

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...how the Martins raised Trayvon. I have no insight to how that went. I do have insight into how external forces likely misshaped a critical part of Trayvons character though.

There it is again.

It's one thing to say you have insight into external forces which "program minorities" (debateable, but let's assume for now you have some unusually-accurate knowlege of minority culture).

It's quite another to blindly apply that to people (e.g. a defendant whose background you admittedly don't know anything about, a juror you don't know based only on a statement about doubt, etc.).

I gave some examples of events that I attribute to these external influences. I asked if my theory was wrong then what do you attribute them to.....
No one has offered an alternative, instead they just want to tell me I'm wrong. Should I abandon what I believe just 'because you said so'?

What causes a bunch of black men to select a white victim at random and beat them up "for Trayvon"?
Can you give me a reason that doesn't touch on the themes Al Sharpton cashes in on?
Are you trying to say that is a natural state of mind for darker skinned humans?!? If so maybe using euphemisms like "the N word" isn't so stupid after all!

What caused Travon to call Zimmerman "creepy assed Cracka" instead of saying some guy is following me? I'm going to guess his parents didn't teach him to react that way and if they did it doesn't mean that lesson was their own invention!

Outside influences, peer influence, etc are certainly not an unproven theory. They are practically inescapable.
Black people are inundated with some very racially charged agita type influence. Also a well know fact, not crazy theory.
So give me some plausible alternative if I shouldn't be attributing these kind of things to the source I have.

CUDA wrote:are you willing to say the same thing about a person of color?????? if not then you are part of the problem.. Racism exists as long as people continually make it an issue.

Yes I am. I've mentioned a few times I'm against all groupisms. That includes racism, nationalism, and speciesism. I don't give a crap if you are a person of color, you deserve the same rights that I have. One of those rights is not being suspected of being a criminal when I walk down the street. Just like in our judicial system where we strive to treat all as innocent until proven guilty we need so, socially, apply those same principals to our neighbors even when it flies in the face of stereotypes.

One argument is that minorities, especially blacks, are afforded more rights than others through various laws, and after all the effort, black disparity is the fault of blacks themselves. To that I say "maybe." This might be an oversimplification of African American culture which is much more complex than the average non-black realizes. I don't have an answer for the state of African American culture, but I know it's not time to say "you are on your own now."

And since I never weighed in on Zimmerman, here is what I think. I think the justice system worked, faulty or not. I think Martin's death was the result of extreme carelessness and stupidity on the part of Zimmerman. I don't know if his actions constitute manslaughter because I wasn't in court to hear the evidence, but given the outcome I can assume the evidence wasn't strong. Zimmerman clearly did not murder Martin. It's a tragic accident, the result of out of control fear expressed by both men.

Edit: Challenge removed...not worth it.

vision wrote:... I don't give a crap if you are a person of color, you deserve the same rights that I have. One of those rights is not being suspected of being a criminal when I walk down the street. Just like in our judicial system where we strive to treat all as innocent until proven guilty we need so, socially, apply those same principals to our neighbors even when it flies in the face of stereotypes.

You just implied Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because of racial stereotyping. You failed to acknowledge that Zimmerman's neighborhood was suffering lots of crime, all of it perpetrated by young black men and he was acting as a watchdog for his neighborhood specifically because of the crimes carried out by those young black men.Those facts would lead an objective person to think the motive might have been much more valid that some bigoted mindset he has.

So, in your 'right to not be suspected of criminality' are you supposed to be immune to scrutiny when you fit the profile of criminals concentrated in the area you happen to be?

That factor is never addressed by the loudmouths in the media whenever Zimmerman's alleged "racial profiling" is cited as the problem.

In the old days of Jim Crow a bigoted 'white' man would have spotted a black kid where he 'shouldn't be' and scare him, beat the crap out of him or even worse. However Zimmerman didn't play that role. He immediately called the police and tried to talk the police to Martins location in real time. Hardly the act of a racist who stalked and murdered a black child who was minding his own business.

The difference in motives there is vast and you seem to be well prepared to point at Zimmerman as having a bigoted motive and very reluctant to acknowledge that the evidence makes it more likely it wasn't a stereotype of black people...it was a profile of criminal perpetrators... that caused him to focus on Martin.

Unless of course you think that immunity to all suspicion should have prevented Zimmerman from thinking Martin was a possible criminal regardless of the profile.

vision wrote:One argument is that minorities, especially blacks, are afforded more rights than others through various laws, and after all the effort, black disparity is the fault of blacks themselves. To that I say "maybe." This might be an oversimplification of African American culture which is much more complex than the average non-black realizes. I don't have an answer for the state of African American culture, but I know it's not time to say "you are on your own now."

Let's at least be willing to say you are ready to deal with the natural tendancies of inter racial encounters as well as any logical suspicions that may include your race as an identifier. You must be sophisticated enough to know when you are really being singled out due to the malicious intent of a bigot and when you might simply be fitting a perfectly reasonable profile and the suspicion is justified. And in neither case is that just cause for a violent reaction!!

Now that might seem like a pretty simple, even obvious thing to expect of a someone but just try and suggest that to the nearest community agitator! Lol!

vision wrote:And since I never weighed in on Zimmerman, here is what I think. I think the justice system worked, faulty or not. I think Martin's death was the result of extreme carelessness and stupidity on the part of Zimmerman. I don't know if his actions constitute manslaughter because I wasn't in court to hear the evidence, but given the outcome I can assume the evidence wasn't strong. Zimmerman clearly did not murder Martin. It's a tragic accident, the result of out of control fear expressed by both men.

Why no comment on the stupidity and extreme carelessness of Martin? After all, if the verdict was correct you have to believe Martin jumped on Zimmerman and pounded his head until there was just cause for self defense!
You think stereotyping someone and calling the cops on them and not running away from them is stupid and careless but you don't have anything to say about committing a violent, potentially deadly assault?
That kind of selective criticism is not helping foster those social principles of equality you talked about. It does lend itself to perpetuate and validate the angry victim justification mindset though.

Will Robinson wrote:So give me some plausible alternative if I shouldn't be attributing these kind of things to the source I have.

The alternative is to use some discretion, rather than blindly applying your stated assumption that "they've been programmed" to every minority.

It's massively over-simplistic to insist that every minority (the defendant, the juror, the protesters, etc.) are all being driven by the same external force. It's also massively over-simplistic to apply your presumption of "programming" to every instance of a minority thinking disfavorably about someone of another color.

For example: Should I assume that your tendency to downplay white racism vs. minority racism is due to "white programming" and caucasian cultural ideas about race? Of course not; I know it's more complex than that... and you should be able to apply the same discretion.

Will Robinson wrote:...it was a profile of criminal perpetrators... that caused him to focus on Martin.

You're being inconsistent, Will. Which is it?

Martin and Zimmerman were both applying a profile of the other based solely on historical information about people of the same appearance. So is race-based profiling based on historical information good? Or is it evil?

Will Robinson wrote:After all, if the verdict was correct you have to believe Martin jumped on Zimmerman and pounded his head until there was just cause for self defense!

No. Per the jury instructions, they simply had to have some level of reasonable doubt. They could have been "almost certain" that Zimmerman was guilty, and acquittal would have still been the correct verdict.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So give me some plausible alternative if I shouldn't be attributing these kind of things to the source I have.

The alternative is to use some discretion, rather than blindly applying your stated assumption that "they've been programmed" to every minority.

It's massively over-simplistic to insist that every minority (the defendant, the juror, the protesters, etc.) are all being driven by the same external force. It's also massively over-simplistic to apply your presumption of "programming" to every instance of a minority thinking disfavorably about someone of another color.

I've purposely tried to use numerous characterizations to name the effect I'm citing. Programming, peer/external influence, agitators, etc. as well as stating that it manifested itself different ways and to different degrees in different people.
So the simplification isn't really my doing...I told you you were ignoring the subtleties and nuances etc before, remember?
So maybe, as I also alluded to before, if you would entertain the theory as complex as I've tried to describe it you wouldn't be trying to boil it down to a simple bias on my part....

Also, you really didn't answer the question did you?
If not external forces....in all their nuances and degrees of manipulation and enabling and coddling and prodding and agitating, etc. etc. etc.....then what?!?
What is the reason a group of black men pick a random white victim and beats him " for Trayvon"??

Foil wrote:For example: Should I assume that your tendency to downplay white racism vs. minority racism is due to "white programming" and caucasian cultural ideas about race? Of course not; I know it's more complex than that... and you should be able to apply the same discretion.

You should be able to cite probable influences of 'white programming' that has influenced me if you are going to propose an equivalent phenomena....
Show me the white Al Sharpton preaching anti-black messages to my people...show me the politicians who promote excusing my anti social or criminal acts because it is really the black mans fault...example that are the racial opposite of Critical Race Theory being taught in universities,.etc. etc.

You are claiming that both races have equal outside influences creating this mindset. Help me see it because I can't think of anything near the equivalent of the black race monger machine!

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...it was a profile of criminal perpetrators... that caused him to focus on Martin.

You're being inconsistent, Will. Which is it?

Martin and Zimmerman were both applying a profile of the other based solely on historical information about people of the same appearance. So is race-based profiling based on historical information good? Or is it evil?

I think you are trying to miss the distinction there.
Zimmermans profile was created to seek out criminals in a confined space that are operating in the present. The race of the criminals was secondary to the reason the profile was created...crime. If they had been black and white criminals Zimmerman would have alerted to a white Travon just as fast.
In all the 911 calls he made ( did you listen to them? I did) he always refered to them by location, age, activity, sex, size, etc.
Never did he mention their race unless the operator asked him to provide it!
He has a history of being a mentor to black and Latinos....dated a black girl for his prom...
I'm pretty confident in my conclusion/assertion here that Zimmerman wasn't looking for a reason to hunt black people. He had been tasked to watch out for criminals who, so far all happened to be black.

Unless you are suggesting the profile Martin relied on to alert to Zimmerman, as a creepy assed Cracka, is a profile built on problems with latino neighborhood watchmen who are looking for young black thieves you have failed to see the distinction.

Foil wrote:[

Will Robinson wrote:After all, if the verdict was correct you have to believe Martin jumped on Zimmerman and pounded his head until there was just cause for self defense!

No. Per the jury instructions, they simply had to have some level of reasonable doubt. They could have been "almost certain" that Zimmerman was guilty, and acquittal would have still been the correct verdict.

No. The instruction talk about the difference of "some doubt" and what you call " almost certainty". 'Almost certainty' trumps 'some doubt'. If they had "almost certainty" that Zimmerman was guilty they would convict. Or at least that is the way the jury instruction leads them.

I've been there in a murder trial on the jury. I've recieved those instructions.
It is pretty sobering and weighty. The key is the interpretation/ application of 'reasonable' To me it isn't reasonable doubt if it is up against "almost certainty".

Here is the actual instruction for that part:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved

They don't use your words "almost certain' so its not definitive. I don't know if your almost certain is as solid as my interpretation of almost certain. For me almost certain diminishes any doubt to a lesser than reasonable....

Will Robinson wrote:You just implied Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because of racial stereotyping.

I made no such implication. I clearly said above that the accident between Zimmerman and Martin was the result of runaway fear by both men. Martin had just as much right to be afraid for his life as Zimmerman because it was a high crime area. And besides, black men fear other black men for the same reasons anyone else would. The neighborhood had an atmosphere of trouble and anyone could be seen as a troublemaker.

Will Robinson wrote:So, in your 'right to not be suspected of criminality' are you supposed to be immune to scrutiny when you fit the profile of criminals concentrated in the area you happen to be?

Absolutely. It's part of being civilized. The act of profiling is dangerous in itself and requires a great deal of care. Profiling often leads to stereotyping and unjust divisions among people. As I said above, Zimmerman was careless and stupid to engage Martin. There is a reason we train police to deal with situations like this and Zimmerman was not prepared for what he got himself into, clearly, because a kid is dead now. And even police mess it up from time to time. Maybe Martin did fit a profile, but Zimmerman lacked ability to discern whether or not the kid was a criminal perpetrator.

Will Robinson wrote:The difference in motives there is vast and you seem to be well prepared to point at Zimmerman as having a bigoted motive and very reluctant to acknowledge that the evidence makes it more likely it wasn't a stereotype of black people...

You are clearly making crap up. I have only made one statement on the Zimmerman case and it was in the post above. Nowhere did I say Zimms was motivated by race. I will state my position again: both men acted out of fear and Zimmerman was careless with the power he was wielding. I also said it feels like manslaughter to me, but I don't know what evidence there is to support my feeling because I wasn't in court.

Will Robinson wrote:And in neither case is that just cause for a violent reaction!!

...From EITHER party. Violence is never justified.

Will Robinson wrote:Why no comment on the stupidity and extreme carelessness of Martin?

You are correct, Martin did also act stupidly. There are a few things he could have done. One was call the police and say Zimmerman was following/harassing/whatever him. Another thing is to be polite and reassure Zimmerman he has no ill intent. Yet another is to try and leave the situation, though this may have been difficult if Zimms was persistent in following him. So yes, Martin did act stupidly. And I attest this was due to elevated fear. But Martin did not have a gun. Zimmerman was the truly careless one simply because he did not meet the power he had with the restraint and composure required to wield it. This is unfortunate.

I really think the true story isn't about race or the justice system, but how ordinary people and those with good intentions can find themselves in deadly situations because of fear. Had either Zimmerman or Martin choose to challenge their fear of the other that boy would still be alive.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You just implied Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin because of racial stereotyping.

I made no such implication. I clearly said above that the accident between Zimmerman and Martin was the result of runaway fear by both men. ...

No, you said this:

... I don't give a crap if you are a person of color, you deserve the same rights that I have. One of those rights is not being suspected of being a criminal when I walk down the street. Just like in our judicial system where we strive to treat all as innocent until proven guilty we need so, socially, apply those same principals to our neighbors even when it flies in the face of stereotypes.

That implies a racial stereotype was used to deprive Martin his 'right to walk around without being suspected' of being a criminal. Obviously we are talking about Zimmerman being the one who suspected Martin.
Race was only one of numerous identifiers in the profile, as well as general behavior, which also was part of what Zimmerman reported as his reason for calling the police.

Also, you don't have any right to 'not be suspected'....that is ridiculous. Police can't stop you without probable cause, business can't refuse you based on any number of conditions, etc. but anyone can suspect anyone anytime. What you do to the suspect is where people go wrong. Zimmermans action of calling police may be offensive but he was within his right to tell the police he sees someone that fits a profile.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So, in your 'right to not be suspected of criminality' are you supposed to be immune to scrutiny when you fit the profile of criminals concentrated in the area you happen to be?

Absolutely. It's part of being civilized. The act of profiling is dangerous in itself and requires a great deal of care. Profiling often leads to stereotyping and unjust divisions among people. As I said above, Zimmerman was careless and stupid to engage Martin. There is a reason we train police to deal with situations like this and Zimmerman was not prepared for what he got himself into, clearly, because a kid is dead now. And even police mess it up from time to time. Maybe Martin did fit a profile, but Zimmerman lacked ability to discern whether or not the kid was a criminal perpetrator.

True but if Zimmerman only called police and followed at a distance then it is a real stretch to blame him for Martins death.
He called the police because he knew they were the ones who should make that determination! As the 'watch guy' he was doing what the police and his neighbors wanted him to do.

You may see someone outside your window and step out to investigate, see something else about that person suspicious and decide to call the cops. If at that point that person attacks you and you end up shooting him in self defense then you did not do anything wrong, or violate the suspects rights etc. and you did not cause his death.
That 'civil' society you mention needs you to be able to watch for criminals and call police or it will become a collection of hiding places instead of homes.

I certainly wish Zimmerman had stayed home that night but since he didn't and an assault and shooting took place instead we have to follow the laws. Even if it means one of the factors in the death was his location, age, sex and yes, race, made him fit a profile. Once they were on course to run into each other, in that civilized world you talk about, it should have ended as a harmless false alarm but a choice made in anger took it over the edge. It was all quite civil with that one exception.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The difference in motives there is vast and you seem to be well prepared to point at Zimmerman as having a bigoted motive and very reluctant to acknowledge that the evidence makes it more likely it wasn't a stereotype of black people...

You are clearly making crap up. I have only made one statement on the Zimmerman case and it was in the post above. Nowhere did I say Zimms was motivated by race.

Yes, as I pointed out above, you implied a racial stereotype was used to make Zimmerman suspicious of Martin. You have removed most of the context of what caused Zimmerman to alert to Martin and left only race there...

That is the same misrepresentation of reality that is being used to keep the 'Justice for Trayvon' battle cry validated all around the country! It is fueling the division and it is dishonest.

vision wrote:I will state my position again: both men acted out of fear and Zimmerman was careless with the power he was wielding. I also said it feels like manslaughter to me, but I don't know what evidence there is to support my feeling because I wasn't in court.

I don't know that he was careless. If he is telling the truth he had every right and reasonable expectation to walk behind Martin thinking anything he wanted and calling anyone he wanted on the phone.
The timeline based on both of their phone records shows Martin had plenty of time and an urn obstructed path straight to his fathers house. He burned nearly 4 minutes of that time not moving toward home and ultimately found himself face to face with Zimmerman.

Did he step out of the shadow at that location and confront Zimmerman as Zimmerman said or did Zimmerman walk up to him? We don't know.

We do know Zimmerman had never confronted anyone face to face before and he did all the things in this instance you would expect someone to do that was trying to avoid face to face and instead facilitate the police arriving to take on that role.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And in neither case is that just cause for a violent reaction!!

...From EITHER party. Violence is never justified.

Will Robinson wrote:Why no comment on the stupidity and extreme carelessness of Martin?

You are correct, Martin did also act stupidly. There are a few things he could have done. One was call the police and say Zimmerman was following/harassing/whatever him. Another thing is to be polite and reassure Zimmerman he has no ill intent. Yet another is to try and leave the situation, though this may have been difficult if Zimms was persistent in following him. So yes, Martin did act stupidly. And I attest this was due to elevated fear. But Martin did not have a gun. Zimmerman was the truly careless one simply because he did not meet the power he had with the restraint and composure required to wield it. This is unfortunate.

I really think the true story isn't about race or the justice system, but how ordinary people and those with good intentions can find themselves in deadly situations because of fear. Had either Zimmerman or Martin choose to challenge their fear of the other that boy would still be alive.

I agree with all of that other than the "Zimmerman was the truly careless one " charge. Unless he did walk up and confront Martin. Then he would be careless at best and possibly guilty of manslaughter depending on what took place.

Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

You obviously didn't even read half of what I wrote let alone any reporting on the case or else you would have found something else to get wrong.

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

And people keep saying Zimmerman only confronted Martin because he knew he had the advantage, being armed. (including the prosecution)

Oh yea right, Zimmerman had a portable X-Ray machine in his car, and did a quick scan to make sure that the guy he just profiled as a “thug” was un-armed.

Around here, we assume thugs “are” armed.

Will Robinson wrote:No, you said this:

... I don't give a crap if you are a person of color, you deserve the same rights that I have. One of those rights is not being suspected of being a criminal when I walk down the street. Just like in our judicial system where we strive to treat all as innocent until proven guilty we need so, socially, apply those same principals to our neighbors even when it flies in the face of stereotypes.

That implies a racial stereotype was used to deprive Martin his 'right to walk around without being suspected' of being a criminal. Obviously we are talking about Zimmerman being the one who suspected Martin.

Nah, my comment had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. I was replying to CUDA as he was trying to hold me to a standard. I'll say it again: everyone deserves the right to go about the world peacefully without being suspect. I made this comment because this is something all people of color face daily in the US; African American, Hispanic, Arab, etc... and this includes women of color too. I don't believe race was a motivator in the Zimmerman case. I believe Zimms probably had his fair share of being on the ugly end of a racial profile himself. He's not all that white, haha.

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

And you don't know either.... so please, keep pushing YOUR version of the narrative.

The evidence "suggests" that Zimmerman spotted Martin and followed him. And that Martin attacked Zimmerman because he didn't like the fact that, that "creapy ass cracker" was doing so. And that while Martin was attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself and kiled Martin.

So lets see who comitted the crime in that scenario

Zimmerman followed or even profiled Martin. Not a crime.
Martin assaulted Zimmerman. A CRIME. (And it doesn't matter if there was a verbal confrontation or not beforehand. It is illegal to assault someone)
Zimmerman defended himself, which resulted in Martins death. No crime

So as tragic as the whole even was. The ONLY crime committed was by Martin. That is what the evidence provided proved. There is NOTHING that suggests there was ANY kind of verbal altercation between Zimmerman and Martin before the assault, and it is remiss, conjecture and a pure assumption on your part to suggest otherwise.

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

it would be amusing, TG, were it not so blantantly fueled by hate and fear. It does, however, on a daily basis, go far toward answering the question posed at the outset of the thread......

Spidey wrote: Around here, we assume thugs “are” armed.

around here, we DON'T assume that 17 year old boys with an iced tea in one hand and a pack of Skittles in the other are 'Thugs'.......an observation which speaks to the heart of the Zimmerman case.

Around here, when someone beats somebody into submission, and then continues to so through their cries of help, we consider thugs.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote: Around here, we assume thugs “are” armed.

around here, we DON'T assume that 17 year old boys with an iced tea in one hand and a pack of Skittles in the other are 'Thugs'.......an observation which speaks to the heart of the Zimmerman case.

And of course you can prove that Zimmerman "assumed" Martin was a thug. I'm glad all of those on the left have the ability to know the mind set of those they disagree with. They do with the Zimmerman case, and they are doing it on this forum.

callmeslick wrote:around here, we DON'T assume that 17 year old boys with an iced tea in one hand and a pack of Skittles in the other are 'Thugs'.......an observation which speaks to the heart of the Zimmerman case.

I’m not sure I could tell the age of someone at a distance in the dark, let alone what they have in their hands. This is exactly the same kind of thing as assuming that Zimmerman knew he had the advantage.

Do you know what kind of picture that paints of Zimmerman…oh yea, I’m sure you do.

callmeslick wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

it would be amusing, TG, were it not so blantantly fueled by hate and fear. It does, however, on a daily basis, go far toward answering the question posed at the outset of the thread......

.
I have a million dollar show trial full of evidence and testimony that gives me probable cause to draw the conclusion I have drawn.

You, on the other hand, drew your conclusion from nothing but your own prejudice.

Wow you all didn't see this coming? I read this and the whole thread makes you want to puke. Both side going on and on about race. I got a secret for you. Race is a social contstruct derived from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and in fact has no basic biological reality.

Will Robinson wrote:

Foil wrote:The alternative is to use some discretion, rather than blindly applying your stated assumption that "they've been programmed" to every minority.

I've purposely tried to use numerous characterizations to name the effect I'm citing. Programming, peer/external influence, agitators, etc. as well as stating that it manifested itself different ways and to different degrees in different people.

Ah, but despite your "numerous characterizations", you're still applying a uniform wide-angle lens. You're still ultimately ascribing all these cases to the same basic premise, that minorities are wrongly programmed/influenced.

Sure, you see Martin's "creepy" statement, a protestor's violence, and a juror's statement about reasonable doubt as different... but ultimately you ascribe them to the same category of forces, "minorities are programmed/agitated".

Will Robinson wrote:...I can't think of anything near the equivalent of the black race monger machine!

Will, for every "race baiter", there's a horde of white politicians and talking heads who instantly dismiss any mention of racism as "black race-mongering", and counter with their own pointed fingers. And they have a huge following, which I'm starting to suspect includes you.

Will Robinson wrote:Zimmermans profile was created to seek out criminals...
He had been tasked to watch out for criminals who, so far all happened to be black.

Ah, so you do believe that a profile which is based solely on race can be legitimate, if it's based on criminal behavior. Thank you for answering my question.

Will Robinson wrote:'Almost certainty' trumps 'some doubt'.

Okay, I'll be more precise:

Will Robinson wrote:...if the verdict was correct you have to believe Martin jumped on Zimmerman and pounded his head until there was just cause for self defense!

Again, this is wrong. Per the jury instructions you quoted, if the verdict was correct, the jurors only had to have reasonable doubt. They did not have to believe that it was self-defense. In fact, they could be more convinced that it was murder than self-defense (e.g. the juror you've been ranting about), and reasonable doubt would still carry.

Heretic wrote:Race is a social contstruct derived from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and in fact has no basic biological reality.

You're right!

The thing is, both sides will agree with you. And then they will promptly proceed to accuse the other group/race/culture/party of being racist.

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman. A CRIME. (And it doesn't matter if there was a verbal confrontation or not beforehand. It is illegal to assault someone)

Sorry, CUDA, you're making an assumption here. We have zero evidence about who started the physical conflict.

It's possible that Martin started the assault.
It's also possible that Zimmerman started the assault.

All we know is how the fight ended.

Foil wrote:[...You're still ultimately ascribing all these cases to the same basic premise, that minorities are wrongly programmed/influenced.

Sure, you see Martin's "creepy" statement, a protestor's violence, and a juror's statement about reasonable doubt as different... but ultimately you ascribe them to the same category of forces, "minorities are programmed/agitated".

Will Robinson wrote:...I can't think of anything near the equivalent of the black race monger machine!

Will, for every "race baiter", there's a horde of white politicians and talking heads who instantly dismiss any mention of racism as "black race-mongering", and counter with their own pointed fingers. And they have a huge following, which I'm starting to suspect includes you.

I'd love it if you would list the top 5 contributors with examples of their content to the 'programming' of white people to dismiss any mention of racism as "black race-mongering"!
I'm quite positive it will be like a puff of smoke from a fire cracker is to a mushroom cloud from the Hiroshima nuke when compared to the race mongering machine!

First off "hordes of white politicians that dismiss any mention..."
I seriously doubt you can find more than one or two that have taken that position and then you'll be faced with trying to show their voice and influence as being as loud and influential as the examples I will show you. You might as well be trying to hold back the tide with a broom!

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Zimmermans profile was created to seek out criminals...
He had been tasked to watch out for criminals who, so far all happened to be black.

Ah, so you do believe that a profile which is based solely on race can be legitimate, if it's based on criminal behavior. Thank you for answering my question.

No! I clearly tried to point out the profile WAS NOT solely based on race! I listed the criteria elsewhere in the thread where I pointed out the attempt to leave it all out was dishonest. More important is the main distinction Im pointing out which is the MOTIVE for having the profile! It was born of the need to identify CRIMINAL threat not merely a bigoted need to keep an eye out for members of a particular race!

That is the elephant in the room! Your MOTIVE and the CIRCUMSTANCES that spur the act of profiling people is often the difference between legal and illegal profiling.
The motive for the profile Zimmerman was working from is pretty clear cut....it was to prevent crime. Not to arbitrarily offend and violate a whole race of people.

The notion that black people can't be profiled, ever, is ridiculous. It is contrary to common sense. And that kind off gone wild is one of the things that has led to the problems I'm pointing out.
It is one of the things that keeps you and slick etc from answering those question that you all keep dodging!

If not for external agitation, for the reasons I've pointed to, why are groups of black people picking a random white victim and beating them "for Trayvon" ?!?

Will Robinson wrote:First off "hordes of white politicians that dismiss any mention..."
I seriously doubt you can find more than one or two that have taken that position and then you'll be faced with trying to show their voice and influence as being as loud and influential as the examples I will show you.

There's that colored (heh) lens of yours again. Ask yourself why you're seeing the problem as so utterly one-sided, and resist the urge to immediately assume "that's because it is".

If you want specific examples, try a simple search like, say, "blacks the real racists". You'll find a stream of politicians, pundits, bloggers, etc. devaluing (and sometimes outright dismissing) racism against minorities.

Will Robinson wrote:I clearly tried to point out the profile WAS NOT solely based on race! It was born of the need to identify CRIMINAL threat not merely a bigoted need to keep an eye out for members of a particular race!

That's not what I meant. Let me clarify:

Given a historical criminal profile, do you believe that a using race as the only basis to tie a person to that profile is legitimate?

Will Robinson wrote:If not for external agitation, for the reasons I've pointed to, why are groups of black people picking a random white victim and beating them "for Trayvon" ?!?

I never said that wasn't the reason for that specific case.

I did say you're being incredibly over-simplistic and inaccurate to apply the same rationale about programming/agitation to every other case.

White people are 6 times more likely than blacks to use racial intimidation. White people are 23 times more likely than blacks to engage in anti-black hate crimes.

Note: I was shocked to see these numbers. Seems there are a lot more actively racist whites than I suspected.

Vision, if you're trying to make statistical inferences about likelihood of a given person to commit these crimes, you're doing some bad math. (For one, you're not accounting for relative population sizes.) Try again.

Foil wrote:...
That's not what I meant. Let me clarify:

Given a historical criminal profile, do you believe that a using race as the only basis to tie a person to that profile is legitimate?

Generically, no. Now if a black rapist has been breaking into college dorms at night and raping girls I can see the profile consisting only of black, male as legitimate for anyone who is guarding the dorms at night....and not legitimate for everyone else who sees a black man elsewhere...

Zimmerman was not using his profile out of context and it had more than race as a criteria. Context is king.
The notion that there should be national outcry to have Zimmerman convicted or hung by a mob etc because his use of that profile is evidence of the problem I'm talking about.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If not for external agitation, for the reasons I've pointed to, why are groups of black people picking a random white victim and beating them "for Trayvon" ?!?

I never said that wasn't the reason for that specific case.

I did say you're being incredibly over-simplistic and inaccurate to apply the same rationale about programming/agitation to every other case.

I don't think I've cited any case that it isn't appropriate to apply my theory to. I'm open to be corrected if I have gone off the reservation in that regard.

Will Robinson wrote:On this white privilege meme. How much of an exemption to the law should black people have to make up for it?

That statement right there reeks of resentment. The fact you need to ASK how much more do white people have to give to make up for the years of slavery, forced servitude, forced relocation, family separations, wholesale rape and murder and vile repression of another race tells me you're not happy about giving more than what you think is due, or have already given up to now. In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:On this white privilege meme. How much of an exemption to the law should black people have to make up for it?

That statement right there reeks of resentment. The fact you need to ASK how much more do white people have to give to make up for the years of slavery, forced servitude, forced relocation, family separations, wholesale rape and murder and vile repression of another race tells me you're not happy about giving more than what you think is due, or have already given up to now. In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

How much is 2+2 ?

Oh dear! I just revealed that I'm actually a serial killer of french poodles, the pioneer of string theory and have a penchant for cheap merlot!!
When will I learn to keep quiet?!?

Or, maybe TC just exhibited the worse case of projecting bigotry on to someone based on NO FRIKKEN CORRELATION TO REALITY ever.
An event that is only out marveled by the extreme level of her own white guilt that she just revealed by stating the premise of her comment!

I hereby cite TC as proof my theory on programming is equally as effective on the kneejerk liberals as I had implied before. (only sort of joking)

I’m not responsible for what people did in the past.

Nor am I responsible for the "sins" of my race.

TunnelCat wrote:In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

LOL!

I assume you're speaking of "we" as a country. Assuming "we" have done everything that needs to be done to guarantee them equality, we have made amends as much as depends on us. I could see some kind of homesteading agreement with former slaves in order to get them going, but I think we're many years too late for that. Individually, each of us that deals fairly with a black person each time we deal with a black person has already made amends. No one has been dealt a perfect hand in this life. Every man (or woman) needs to suck it up ad take responsibility for their own life.

flip wrote:Around here, when someone beats somebody into submission, and then continues to so through their cries of help, we consider thugs.

no evidence shows Martin did that. Superficial wounds and no concussion? Hardly submission, and zero hand/body wounds on Martin suggest further that whatever 'struggle' ensued, it was extremely brief and hardly a 'beating'.
CUDA, I was responding to Spidey's statement. Any assumption on Zimmerman's case would have been made at the outset of the close range confrontation, whereupon he saw a kid with a drink and candy. Spidey was the one who declared him a thug. I have no clue, nor would any of us, WHAT Zimmerman felt.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

LOL!

I assume you're speaking of "we" as a country. Assuming "we" have done everything that needs to be done to guarantee them equality, we have made amends as much as depends on us. I could see some kind of homesteading agreement with former slaves in order to get them going, but I think we're many years too late for that. Individually, each of us that deals fairly with a black person each time we deal with a black person has already made amends. No one has been dealt a perfect hand in this life. Every man (or woman) needs to suck it up ad take responsibility for their own life.

I tend to agree with you, Thorne. However, I see what TC is trying to say, as well. I know I try very hard to treat everyone equally. I don't feel, in any way, that I've done anything personally to hold any or all black people back. That said, my grandchildren will head into adult life with resources and education that are, at least in part, the result of several generations of our family who have built and maintained an estate whose foundations were formed partially from the labor of a few dozen African slaves in the first 125 years here. We are, further, all beneficiaries of a financial institution founded to invest and maintain the funds of other tobacco farmers, all of whom were slaveowners. So, it is likely I and my family cannot adequately repay the descendants of those people, yet, as Thorne notes, the appropriate time for proper restitution has long passed.

All in all, while these tangents are way off the original thrust of this thread, it does provide certain insights(some of which are inadvertant) into why race still is an issue to this day. To the person above who said that racism isn't inherent in people, I would disagree. Anyone who watched Sixty Minutes last week could have seen a report on the studies done with babies at Yale. It is clear from those studies, which have been duplicated by other researchers, that we are all programmed to see the world as 'us' and 'them' from birth, and further, that we prefer to see 'them' punished' merely because they are not 'us'. With babies, it can be something as simple as a choice of snack, but race(read:skin color) is and has been always the most obvious delination of us and them as we become aware of ethnic diversity.