DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:... If I shoot someone inside my own home, there is no question that I'm defending myself, because the intruder is NOT supposed to be there. Out in public, there is no way to determine who's the aggressor and who's the victim. It's rife for abuse, as is apparently happening.

How do we know you didnt invite the victim over to your house for dinner and then shoot him because you are a racist cracka?
See how your logic works?

If there's evidence of forcible entry or a break in, that's the proof of intent to harm. If I don't know the person and they're inside, same thing. Now if I shoot someone in the back when they tried to flee my premises, or I kiledl someone I knew accidentally, I might me held accountable for MY actions. I personally probably wouldn't get off scot free if I didn't meet the letter of the law for home self-defense.

And yet Martin wasn't trying to escape and he wasn't shot in the back. Why do you persist in thinking Zimmerman wasn't justifiably defending his life?

callmeslick wrote:wow, are you reaching, Will.......which, to my eyes, seems to expose a self-awareness that you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

Wow slick, thanks for making my point since I was mimicking TC's previous arguments completely and had turned it on her to demonstrate just what a ridiculous reach she had been making....

Thanks for the backup....or was that a kneejerk on your part that resulted in friendly fire on TC?

Will Robinson wrote:How do we know you didn't stage the break in after inviting them in so you could shoot them? I think you should be charged for premeditated murder because the victim is dead and can't tell their side of the story....

Wow, you're really grasping at straws. There has to be some point at which the law and the authorities that prosecute that law can distinguish between someone using self-defense and someone performing murder under the guise of self defense when someone is killed by another. Otherwise, we'd have the Wild West all over again. We're supposed to be more civilized than that. Stand your ground laws only blur that line. Even Oregon's statute comes close to a stand your ground law. The operative words are "reasonably believes". That opens up a whole lot of interpretation and fuzziness for what is really self defense and what is murder.

CUDA wrote:there was NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled (because of race) or attacked Martin. yet you INSIST that we cannot know because Martin is dead and we cannot hear his side of the story. Will is just stating your very own argument to make his point. so maybe now you understand how foolish your stance was.

Ah, but there was. All reports of burglaries in the area referenced black males. Zimmerman had to have that in mind when he specifically followed Martin. So in essence, Zimmerman profiled Martin just from previous police reports.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:wow, are you reaching, Will.......which, to my eyes, seems to expose a self-awareness that you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

not really. I seem him just using your own argument against you.

there was NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled (because of race) or attacked Martin. yet you INSIST that we cannot know because Martin is dead and we cannot hear his side of the story. Will is just stating your very own argument to make his point. so maybe now you understand how foolish your stance was.

actually, I never have claimed that Zimmerman's actions had anything to do with racism. In fact, I have stated, at least 3 times that I know of, on this board, that he DID NOT act out of racism. All I have said, and this was far more eloquently stated by the President, is that perceptions of the act and the resultant death of an unarmed young man get viewed through the lens of 200 years of racism by black viewers.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:How do we know you didn't stage the break in after inviting them in so you could shoot them? I think you should be charged for premeditated murder because the victim is dead and can't tell their side of the story....

Wow, you're really grasping at straws. There has to be some point at which the law and the authorities that prosecute that law can distinguish between someone using self-defense and someone performing murder under the guise of self defense when someone is killed by another. Otherwise, we'd have the Wild West all over again. We're supposed to be more civilized than that. Stand your ground laws only blur that line. Even Oregon's statute comes close to a stand your ground law. The operative words are "reasonably believes". That opens up a whole lot of interpretation and fuzziness for what is really self defense and what is murder.

That is exactly what Self Defense law already is....the reasonable expectation that you were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm! Just because you are in your house doesn't mean you have carte blanche to kill anyone there. You also have to have that reasonable fear. Stand Your Ground simply removes a Duty to Retreat toward safety if you are not at home.
Even without Stand Your Ground you can still claim self defense without having retreated in public places....(especially if you are driven to the ground and jumped on by someone who pounds your head into cement).
There is NEVER a complete 'right to kill' no matter whether you are at home or not No matter if there is Stand Your Ground laws or not.

Stand Your Ground simply changes one of the many criteria you need to meet in a public place. There is always a requirement for you to fear for your well being no matter where you are...in spite of the spin you obviously have accepted as fact.

The duty to retreat is just as dangerous as the lack of it. It always comes down to the character of the person defending their self. There are more upstanding people with guns than criminals so the odds are for every gang banger who gets to use it there can be at least one good guy who also benefits...since they are both most likely to be shooting bad guys society wins in the net result. As much as we hate to admit it even a gang banger has a right to self defense so, realistically, many of the gang bangers who won the fight and were then convicted of 'murder' may have only been guilty of a weapons violation and acted in self defense. You see, the lines were already quite blurry.

And I'd love to know if Trayvon Martins death is counted as a death due to Stand Your Ground laws by those 'journalists' you cited who allege Stand Your Ground laws have increased the number of "murders". I bet he is....his mother is currently speaking in front of anti-SYG crowds claiming that in spite of it being totally untrue.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:there was NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled (because of race) or attacked Martin. yet you INSIST that we cannot know because Martin is dead and we cannot hear his side of the story. Will is just stating your very own argument to make his point. so maybe now you understand how foolish your stance was.

Ah, but there was. All reports of burglaries in the area referenced black males. Zimmerman had to have that in mind when he specifically followed Martin. So in essence, Zimmerman profiled Martin just from previous police reports.

Yes! And he was expected to profile! It was the duty he volunteered for. You see "profile" and immediately you kneejerk into thinking that is a terrible thing. It isn't.
There is legal profiling and illegal profiling. Police can't stop you from driving while black.....Police can pull over a black guy in a red car if the suspect was reported to be black in a red car...

A neighborhood watch formed because black youths have committed the bulk of the crimes CAN LEGALLY pay extra attention to black youths in the neighborhood. There is no law that prevents them from using logic! Only in government do you find those kind of stupid rules.
And in spite of that hurting the feelings of black youths, or blacks in general, they are not allowed to, in turn, beat the neighborhood watch guy into the cement...
If they do they might just get shot!

callmeslick wrote:... All I have said, and this was far more eloquently stated by the President, is that perceptions of the act and the resultant death of an unarmed young man get viewed through the lens of 200 years of racism by black viewers.

Yes, and he is correct, however where he fails miserably...no, more than fails, he purposely harms all of us, is his omission of the fact that in spite of the pain caused by being singled out with the weight of all that horrible history on your back, you can not equate a reasonable suspicion with a bigoted one!! It is incumbant on the black person to make that distinction before deciding to unleash their furor!! And at no time will it justify violence!!

Leaving that cold hard but important fact out just sends more black people to impale themselves on the spear of reality. All to keep his community agitator industry relevant and powerful.
He is a pathetic excuse for someone who promised to help heal this country.

part of healing is to impress upon the majority, the very real pain the minorites feel, Will. Maybe, by doing so, a few years down the road, we won't have dimwits who think throwing around the words of a deceased black kid, who was shot to death when unarmed, is an amusing or catchy thread title. Until then, you're just another part of the problem and would do quite well not to blame 'agitators'.

That's a neat way to justify a one-sided, deficient response. May we on this bulletin board always get so much leeway from you. No, he fucked up, and it's because his head is not in the right place. He is obviously part of the problem. I think Will is exactly right.

Obama was not elected as representative of the black folks, he's supposed to be the President of the entire U.S. Someone in his position ought to step up and tell it exactly like it is. If we had someone in office who would do that it would do everyone in this country so much good.

callmeslick wrote:part of healing is to impress upon the majority, the very real pain the minorites feel, Will. Maybe, by doing so, a few years down the road, we won't have dimwits who think throwing around the words of a deceased black kid, who was shot to death when unarmed, is an amusing or catchy thread title. Until then, you're just another part of the problem and would do quite well not to blame 'agitators'.

I think you have secured yourself into the Hall of Fame of The Problem pretty well with the way you are throwing words around: "a deceased black kid, who was shot to death when unarmed"!! You conveniently left out some of that same, very pertinent, cold hard fact just like Obama did.

That black kid was shot after he was seen beating a victim into the ground and the victim swears he was in fear for his life and shot him in self defense....the physical evidence supports the story of the shooter who was the victim of the beating. The jury concurred with the shooter/victim even though members of that jury wanted with all their heart to find guilt they couldn't, and correctly didn't.

But if you continue to only mention the irrelevant fact that the kid wasn't armed with a conventional weapon and completely withhold the facts of the matter, the extreme high probability the self defense claim was more than justified...the physical evidence.....that a jury manned with people who wanted to find guilt didn't find any....well you go boy! You just keep going on with that 'an unarmed kid was shot' You keep feeding that fire...keep directing them toward that spear.

But you sure have some sick twisted nerve to do it and then you climb up on that high horse of yours and say I am throwing words around?!?!!
Heh! The words I'm throwing around are based in fact. What you are selling is hatred and division and extremely harmful to the people you pretend to be championing. Pathetic.
You are Obama's water boy and you are definitely watering the root of the problem for him.

Its always convenient to leave out the FACTS when they don't suite your AGENDA

I was getting sick to my stomach listening to the president give his perpetual victimhood speech.

ITT angry old white guys still have no clue about their own priviliges. Film at 11.

Top Gun wrote:ITT angry old white guys still have no clue about their own priviliges. Film at 11.

Gawd yes! There is more racism couched in the white we-are-the-victims role being thrown around here in more forms than I've ever heard since Obama got elected. It's starting to get old and stink. The Republicans and tea partiers in Washington aren't even hiding their derision anymore. Representative King is just one of many faces of it. If whites can't learn to respect those who are different, there's no hope for lasting harmony, because those who remain the target of white resentment will always feel second class. And when people feel second class, they don't care one wit about the society they live in.

Will, the fact you think it's OK to have the need to carry a weapon around for self defense, then this country is headed down the road to chaos. If civil people can't solve things in a civil manner, than we're doomed to nothing but violence. Zimmerman should have not confronted Martin, period. He'd called the police and they were on the way. They could have dealt with Martin as trained police in a peaceful manner because they would have identified themselves IN THE FIRST PLACE. Martin called him creepy because Zimmerman WAS acting creepy.

Will, do you live in a rural area? Living in an isolated rural area with a lack of police is the only place someone needs to carry a gun while out and about. In a city, it's rife for creating abuse and mayhem, because too many people are living close together, and heated arguments may just end up as homicides.

I really wish I knew what being privileged felt like, maybe some of you can describe it so I can get the experience vicariously.

You'll know it when you really lose it. So far, you haven't, just as I haven't either. Whites are still top dog in the social heap and they don't let anyone of color forget it. Blacks didn't even get any civil rights until the 1960's. The wounds are still deep and the hatred is still deep. Even in 1999, Danny Glover of Lethal Weapon fame couldn't get a cabbie to pick him up in New York, because he's black.

TunnelCat wrote:You'll know it when you really lose it. So far, you haven't, just as I haven't either.

So logically speaking....

I suspect that you may be right, and there may be some racism lurking in the "we-are-the-victims" position which you apparently suggest is where Spidey, Will, etc... are coming from. I think it would be natural for someone who is racist to get behind that as a more socially acceptable stance in this day to exercise their bias. Anything where black people are bad will certainly get their support. You still actually need to prove that this is where anyone here is coming from, because it is actually a legitimate issue today as well.

tunnelcat wrote:...

Will, the fact you think it's OK to have the need to carry a weapon around for self defense, then this country is headed down the road to chaos.

I don't think it is OK to 'have to' carry one.....but I sure do think it is good to be able to carry one if I want to or need to.
Your fear that it leads to more shootings is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
I understand that you believe it does but that is the result of YOUR FEAR not the facts.
I accept that you are a slave to your unfounded fear. I have no intention of letting your irrational, unfounded and illogical perception dictate how I live.

tunnelcat wrote:... If civil people can't solve things in a civil manner, than we're doomed to nothing but violence.

Well since we truly are a long way from the time when all people solve things in a civil manner it really comes down to managing the violence as best we can to protect our selves. The average number of LAWFULL uses of a gun by a civilian to thwart a violent crime greatly outnumbers the number of times a criminal commits a murder.
And those murders happen in urban areas as much as rural areas.

So why in the hell should I follow your fearful, ill conceived reasoning?!?

tunnelcat wrote:... Zimmerman should have not confronted Martin, period. He'd called the police and they were on the way. They could have dealt with Martin as trained police in a peaceful manner because they would have identified themselves IN THE FIRST PLACE. Martin called him creepy because Zimmerman WAS acting creepy.

Lets assume you have all of that completely correct. The first part is, with the benefit of hind site but let's just go ahead and concede Zimmerman was creepy too...
At what point when a creepy person is following you do you get to smash their head into the concrete in your perfect world where we are all supposed to solve our problems in a civil manner? Is there a certain head-into-cement maneuver that is considered 'civil'?!?

There certainly are a bunch of woulda coulda shoulda you can apply to the Zimmerman case. The one that is by far the most reasonable, peaceful and decent is if Martin had controlled his temper to below-lawless-level. Everyone has a reasonable expectation to not be physically assaulted....even creepy looking Crackas.

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

I’ve been the victim of this or that during my life, but I have never claimed any kind of victim status. The idea is completely repulsive to me.

And sure I have some advantage in this country because of the color of my skin, but I never planned it to be that way, and using the term “privileged” demeans all of the things I have worked very hard to achieve.

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?

who's calling for exemptions or exceptions? Geez, the earlier comment was right......the angry old white guy reek is getting bad in here.

Spidey wrote:I’ve been the victim of this or that during my life, but I have never claimed any kind of victim status. The idea is completely repulsive to me.

if so, then why did you just do so? If you claim to have 'been the victim', then you aspire to victim status. It's pretty simple, really, it is.

And sure I have some advantage in this country because of the color of my skin, but I never planned it to be that way, and using the term “privileged” demeans all of the things I have worked very hard to achieve.

and denying that privilige ignores the historical realities that put you in a position to work hard and gain anything. As I said, the reek is getting bad. I hope it is a generational thing and as time goes on, fewer people will be so insensitive to the role of back-history in the current status quo. Likely, that will be the case, and maybe, we'll get to the point where scared little white boys don't feel compelled to arm themselves against people who pose no real harm, and aren't so dimwitted as to claim everything they achieved in life wasn't built upon an economic framework that benefitted them at the outset, and an educational system that gave them a head start over others.

callmeslick wrote:
and denying that privilige ignores the historical realities that put you in a position to work hard and gain anything. As I said, the reek is getting bad. I hope it is a generational thing and as time goes on, fewer people will be so insensitive to the role of back-history in the current status quo. Likely, that will be the case, and maybe, we'll get to the point where scared little white boys don't feel compelled to arm themselves against people who pose no real harm, and aren't so dimwitted as to claim everything they achieved in life wasn't built upon an economic framework that benefitted them at the outset, and an educational system that gave them a head start over others.

So are the little black chitlins who arm themselves afraid of white boys or are they afraid of the same black people like Treyvon, who kill more black people than whites could ever hope to?
As to you economic status remark, I suggest you take a cold hard look at what you are saying. The real reek lies in what you said. Detroit is a prime example of how blacks have run a major metropolitan city. A city they could of made into a shining example of of black empowerment and job creation for it's citizens. Yet once they won control of the city they instead kept the welfare mentality alive and well. They turned a existing educational system into a morass of poor education teaching in crumbling buildings, the money for which was squandered into crooked political dealings.
Then you can take a look at what happens to people like Bill Cosby who tell them like it is. Or how they take someone like Condoleeza Rice, a person that should be held in high esteem, and debase her with crude cartoons and off the plantation remarks (heh, where was the outrage about the war on women then). The problem is slick, people like you want to blame whitey for all the blacks problem when the blame really lies with all the gimme black folk and race baiters like Al Sharpton.

callmeslick 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?

who's calling for exemptions or exceptions? Geez, the earlier comment was right......the angry old white guy reek is getting bad in here.

We have heard white privilege cited as the reason we don't understand Travons anger and fear. That anger and fear were supposed to be justification for any role he may have played in Zimmerman shooting him.
So if the evidence under the law overwhelmingly supports Zimmermans self defense claim what part of the jury's verdict is trumped by the disadvantage Martin has to white privilege?

If you can't explain that why bring it into the debate?
You and others have clearly tried to counter our argument that is based on the law with this nebulous white privilege factor....
Back up your claim by applying it with specificity to the case and law you invoked it to counter!

What part or effect of white privilege should have changed the verdict?

callmeslick wrote:....and maybe, we'll get to the point where scared little white boys don't feel compelled to arm themselves against people who pose no real harm,

There you go again, trying to alter reality to give your argument something to support it!
Are you pointing to Zimmerman who only pointed his weapon at someone who clearly DID pose more than a threat but in fact caused harm!
Or are you pointing at some one like me who carries a gun as a means of self defense?
I have not threatened anyone who poses no harm and the foundation of having a gun for self defense is intrinsically based on preparedness to face a real threat.

So in either case your assertion is false.
It is your prejudice that allows you to mischaracterize reality so you can feel justified in your dismissal of the valid concept of armed self defense.

You simply ignore the reality that on average 75,000 times per year law abiding citizens use a gun to thwart a violent attack and instead declare the reason a person has a gun for self defense is a bigoted hatred for black people!!

Speaking just for myself, as a gun owner who often carries a concealed weapon for self defense against potential threats from ANY race, species or class of attacker- Piss off!
I don't appreciate your arrogant unfounded derogatory opinion!

callmeslick wrote:....and aren't so dimwitted as to claim everything they achieved in life wasn't built upon an economic framework that benefitted them at the outset, and an educational system that gave them a head start over others.

We didn't receive a "head start", a headstart implies a fixed starting point and a defined course with a defined finishing point. We have simply entered life as free men and women and began exploring our network of opportunities using what resources we found or created.

Obviously a black American today descends from a much shorter line of free men and the network of opportunities presented to him are 150 years less established which puts him at a disadvantage.

And in spite of your silly claims to the contrary all people are quite aware of that!

You seem to want to assign the blame for the plight of the black mans struggle for equality of opportunity with the state of the current generation of white man's opportunity. That is ridiculous.

A network of opportunity isn't something that is unpacked from a delivery truck and handed to a recipient. You cant inventory it in a census and redistribute it among the population. It is what it is. It is like the earths atmosphere you live in it but you can't fabricate it.
You can artificially replicate some of its components and deliver it in controlled environments like Affirmative Action and grants and scholarships etc. etc. but that's it. There is no 'equalizer button' that some white guy can push but he refuses to out of hate!

The notion that white people have a surplus of opportunity they aren't willing to share is what you are implanting in the minds of minorities and that is harmfully to society. At some point the soldier has to realize the killing has stopped now to have that 'normal life' he must beat his sword back into to a plowshare...
The agitators cashing in on the 'war' don't want that message to get out to the 'troops'.

The agitators don't want the 'victim class' to understand that half of the white people never wanted slavery, they fought against it and more than half of them have continued generation after generation to support equality. No other nation has spilled so much of its own blood to free slaves and focused so much attention and resources to ensure a fast rise to equality. Only 50 some years after Jim Crow we have a black president a black attorney, general etc etc.
That's a hell of a failure for a country run by racist peckerwood's and creepy assed Crackas!
Or, maybe the agitators narrative needs to be dismissed for what it really is and the rest of the healing can begin.

Go answer the question I asked regarding white privilege and the Zimmerman verdict if you want to prove me wrong....

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I’ve been the victim of this or that during my life, but I have never claimed any kind of victim status. The idea is completely repulsive to me.

if so, then why did you just do so? If you claim to have 'been the victim', then you aspire to victim status. It's pretty simple, really, it is.

Not to be confused with classical voodoo magic...

Will Robinson wrote:We have heard white privilege cited as the reason we don't understand Travons anger and fear.

I've heard no such thing. What has been attempted is to explain to you that the lens through which blacks view the death of an unarmed young black man is a reflection of history. Privilige seems to me a sidetrack, which although valid, really isn't the issue here, IMO.

That anger and fear were supposed to be justification for any role he may have played in Zimmerman shooting him.
So if the evidence under the law overwhelmingly supports Zimmermans self defense claim what part of the jury's verdict is trumped by the disadvantage Martin has to white privilege?

it is worth noting that the one black woman on the jury feels that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That speaks to the point I made above.

If you can't explain that why bring it into the debate?

I didn't bring it up....you all were discussing it, and I added my commentary.

You and others have clearly tried to counter our argument that is based on the law with this nebulous white privilege factor....
Back up your claim by applying it with specificity to the case and law you invoked it to counter!

actually, I stated clearly from the outset that I didn't think the law supported a murder charge. I am merely trying to show how that fact could still leave black people upset and angry.

What part or effect of white privilege should have changed the verdict?

as I've stated in every fashion I know how, the verdict seems legitimate.The event itself, however, illustrates a lot of issues.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:....and aren't so dimwitted as to claim everything they achieved in life wasn't built upon an economic framework that benefitted them at the outset, and an educational system that gave them a head start over others.

We didn't receive a "head start", a headstart implies a fixed starting point and a defined course with a defined finishing point. We have simply entered life as free men and women and began exploring our network of opportunities using what resources we found or created.

utter and complete nonsense, in far too many cases. Economically underprivileged people are hamstrung by inferior educational opportunity, and recent data shows very clearly that economic mobility in the American south is dismal....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We have heard white privilege cited as the reason we don't understand Travons anger and fear.

I've heard no such thing. What has been attempted is to explain to you that the lens through which blacks view the death of an unarmed young black man is a reflection of history. Privilige seems to me a sidetrack, which although valid, really isn't the issue here, IMO.

That anger and fear were supposed to be justification for any role he may have played in Zimmerman shooting him.
So if the evidence under the law overwhelmingly supports Zimmermans self defense claim what part of the jury's verdict is trumped by the disadvantage Martin has to white privilege?

it is worth noting that the one black woman on the jury feels that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That speaks to the point I made above.

If you can't explain that why bring it into the debate?

I didn't bring it up....you all were discussing it, and I added my commentary.

You and others have clearly tried to counter our argument that is based on the law with this nebulous white privilege factor....
Back up your claim by applying it with specificity to the case and law you invoked it to counter!

actually, I stated clearly from the outset that I didn't think the law supported a murder charge. I am merely trying to show how that fact could still leave black people upset and angry.

What part or effect of white privilege should have changed the verdict?

as I've stated in every fashion I know how, the verdict seems legitimate.The event itself, however, illustrates a lot of issues.

If the verdict is correct then why do you use language that suggests otherwise?!?
You seem to be unable to refuse making political hay out of the situation and although you say the verdict is valid you feed the fires of outrage at the verdict!

If black perception of the verdict, in spite of being based on horrific history, is wrong then have the guts to say it loud and clear!

You have not done so. You have done the opposite. So your words are wind and in this case they are fanning the flames.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:....and aren't so dimwitted as to claim everything they achieved in life wasn't built upon an economic framework that benefitted them at the outset, and an educational system that gave them a head start over others.

We didn't receive a "head start", a headstart implies a fixed starting point and a defined course with a defined finishing point. We have simply entered life as free men and women and began exploring our network of opportunities using what resources we found or created.

utter and complete nonsense, in far too many cases. Economically underprivileged people are hamstrung by inferior educational opportunity, and recent data shows very clearly that economic mobility in the American south is dismal....

That isn't the result of some kind of "head start".
As if someone is cheating or favoring whites out of racial preference pushing white people to the front of the pack. You are ignoring so much of what I said. It is obvious, once again, that it is pointless to continue if you aren't willing to engage in honest discussion.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We have heard white privilege cited as the reason we don't understand Travons anger and fear.

I've heard no such thing. What has been attempted is to explain to you that the lens through which blacks view the death of an unarmed young black man is a reflection of history. Privilige seems to me a sidetrack, which although valid, really isn't the issue here, IMO.

That anger and fear were supposed to be justification for any role he may have played in Zimmerman shooting him.
So if the evidence under the law overwhelmingly supports Zimmermans self defense claim what part of the jury's verdict is trumped by the disadvantage Martin has to white privilege?

it is worth noting that the one black woman on the jury feels that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That speaks to the point I made above.

Yes, but what does it really say about it?
All you really say is black people are stuck on history so badly that they can't see the reality in a particular case!

You recognize the verdict is valid but blacks can't because their perception is clouded...

There is a whole political industry dedicated to keeping that perception clouded!
You have chanted their talking points ad naseum in this forum.

That Puerto Rican juror's conflicting comments are a perfect example. She knows it was self defense under the law yet she 'knows' in her heart it was murder.

The two are mutually exclusive!!
So where is she wrong and why? That is the thing you and too many others won't discuss honestly. That is where, instead of honesty, you inject 'white privilege' etc. fanning the flames instead of delivering the needed truth.

Her perception is clouded. There is no leadership in the minority community willing to tell the cold hard truth. Every time one tries he is shouted down by the race mongers.

Travon Martins culture has let him down and led him to his doom.

It is a fact that there is only one person of “privilege” on this board.

And if he doesn’t understand the difference between being an occasional victim, and wearing a god damn “victim badge” then he is a ★■◆●ing idiot!

Spidey wrote:It is a fact that there is only one person of “privilege” on this board.

And if he doesn’t understand the difference between being an occasional victim, and wearing a god damn “victim badge” then he is a **** idiot!

actually, a whole bunch of you all play the 'victim' BS pretty regularly. And, most of you now are playing dumb.....you know,like saying "what possible advantage do white people get these days?' and 'why don't black people accept the verdict', and so on. And, while I decried the political theater the beginning of this case brought forth, I am appalled at the latent racism and denial of reality I've seen from white men(by and large) in the past couple of weeks. Embarrassing, is what it is for some of us, who at least can empathize with the emotions and reactions, without whining about the poor White Man in modern America, or suggesting that the verdict shows that Zimmerman did the right thing. He clearly DIDN'T do the right thing, in the moral, ethical or(aimed for some of you)anything like the Christian sense. That doesn't mean he technically should not be found not guilty, as one key witness was dead. It's like saying John Gotti was doing the right thing all those years he kept getting acquitted. Acquittal is not a declaration of innocence, or moreover, an affirmation of a person's behavior.

You have created that bull★■◆● right out of thin air, based on your own perceptions, I haven’t once seen anyone here on this board complain about the “poor white man” at anytime during this conversation about the Zimmerman case.

You are creating that delusion in your own mind, based on your preconceptions of the people who you are talking to.

What the hell does not understanding why black people don’t accept the verdict, have to do with feeling sorry for yourself.

Then you talk about “I for one” like you’re some kind of shining light, you make me want to puke, and I think I better put you on ignore to maintain any kind of semblance of sanity. (or before I say something I will really regret)

Spidey wrote:You have created that **** right out of thin air, based on your own perceptions, I haven’t once seen anyone here on this board complain about the “poor white man” at anytime during this conversation about the Zimmerman case.

nonsense, there has been all manner of talk suggesting that victimization is somehow pertinent here.

You are creating that delusion in your own mind, based on your preconceptions of the people who you are talking to.

actually, I have no 'preconceptions'....I make my call based upon the words written here.

What the hell does not understanding why black people don’t accept the verdict, have to do with feeling sorry for yourself.

it really shouldn't have anything to do with it, but it does sort of come out that way(your own words:"I've been a victim...."), whether you intended it to be taken that way.

Then you talk about “I for one” like you’re some kind of shining light,

for the life of me, I looked and couldn't find one post where I said that, or implied that. Do I mean to imply that I am starting to wonder how pervasive racial hatred still is in some quarters? I tend to think of it more as 'racial insensitivity', but still, it has been coming out of the woodworks in the past two weeks. To be clear, when I make these statements, I refer to the larger world beyond the DBB.

you make me want to puke, and I think I better put you on ignore to maintain any kind of semblance of sanity. (or before I say something I will really regret)

if you can't express yourself without regretting it, that would be best, although I've always been of the opinion that 'ignore' is the realm of those who wish to not hear words they disagree with. Weak minds, in blunter terms......

Will Robinson wrote:..... if someone is cheating or favoring whites out of racial preference pushing white people to the front of the pack.

the reality is what does so, and that reality is the result of a history that was, indeed, based on racial preference/prejudice.

You are ignoring so much of what I said. It is obvious, once again, that it is pointless to continue if you aren't willing to engage in honest discussion.

although I didn't quote or comment upon all you said, feel free to point out what I am overlooking, should it seem important to the discourse. I assure you that I read it.

callmeslick wrote:...
although I didn't quote or comment upon all you said, feel free to point out what I am overlooking, should it seem important to the discourse. I assure you that I read it.

Ok, start here.

You seem to want to assign the blame for the plight of the black mans struggle for equality of opportunity with the state of the current generation of white man's opportunity. That is ridiculous.

A network of opportunity isn't something that is unpacked from a delivery truck and handed to a recipient. You cant inventory it in a census and redistribute it among the population.
It is what it is. It is like the earths atmosphere, you live in it but you can't fabricate it.
You can artificially replicate some of its components and deliver it in controlled environments like Affirmative Action and grants and scholarships etc. etc. but that's it. There is no 'equalizer button' that some white guy can push but he refuses to out of hate!

The notion that white people have a surplus of opportunity they aren't willing to share is what you are implanting in the minds of minorities and that is harmfully to society.

There is no head start. Everyone's 'start' is at birth and the current generation of black man has no door closed to him. He has a thinner network of opportunity and that network can not be artificially brought up to par beyond the kind of methods I pointed to.
It is difficult to hear for those who think we should be living in a perfect world but we don't. It is wrong to imply it could be done if only the white man would let it...if only he could understand...

So with that in mind, tell me how the Zimmerman trial should have been different under our law and our culture but was manipulated by bigotry against black people. Specifically. You have implied there is some injustice that took place there...spell it out how it was perpetrated.

Don't cite social trends that indicate disadvantages etc because that is not the kind of example that is being tossed about to stir up racial strife over this case!

No one is saying Zimmerman shot Martin because their education or finacial state was so disparate...
They are saying he shot him because of racism and you have offered support for that with your rhetoric from one side of your mouth while claiming the verdict was sound from the other.
As I said the two are mutually exclusive!

Address that please.

Yes, I have a weak mind, mostly from banging it up against the wall, trying to have a debate where intellectual honesty rules the day…not political propaganda and agendas.

Will Robinson wrote:There is no head start. Everyone's 'start' is at birth and the current generation of black man has no door closed to him. He has a thinner network of opportunity and that network can not be artificially brought up to par beyond the kind of methods I pointed to.

I agree, but wouldn't you, too, agree that this reality is a sort of head start. OK, perhaps not in the sense of a start from behind, but to keep with a racing analogy, one group has to run a narrower path through far deeper footing than another.

It is difficult to hear for those who think we should be living in a perfect world but we don't. It is wrong to imply it could be done if only the white man would let it...if only he could understand...

as I suggested earlier, this whole matter is tangental to the Zimmerman trial and even the aftermath. It might make for a fascinating thread in and of itself, but I certainly had no intention to imply the above.

So with that in mind, tell me how the Zimmerman trial should have been different under our law and our culture but was manipulated by bigotry against black people. Specifically. You have implied there is some injustice that took place there...spell it out how it was perpetrated.

it gets tiresome to repeat, but I DON'T think the trial could have gone any other way under Florida law. Unfortunately, that is not the issue, really. What is the issue is that we have laws that are applied arbitrarily to the rather obvious disadvantage to black persons in this country, and examples of such have been coming up both before and after the trial. The other major issue seems to be the lack of sensitivity within certain members of the white populace for that disadvantage, and the resulting deaths of young black men that run through US history. Sure, we don't have scads of public lynchings or burning of homes, but still and all, the legal system in many areas still serves(especially in terms of perception)to demean the value of the lives of black victims.

No one is saying Zimmerman shot Martin because their education or finacial state was so disparate...
They are saying he shot him because of racism and you have offered support for that with your rhetoric from one side of your mouth while claiming the verdict was sound from the other

here is where you are VERY wrong. Only a small handful of people ever suggested that race was WHY Zimmerman shot Martin. It may have well played a part in why he got out of the car, ignored police requests and set off after him on foot.Even at that, race only seems to have played a role in how he identified Martin as some kind of threat to the community. And, for the life of me, I cannot see how anyone with normal reading comprehension can read the words I've written here and conclude that I have, in any way, supported the conclusion that the shooting itself was based upon racial hatred..

Spidey wrote:Yes, I have a weak mind, mostly from banging it up against the wall, trying to have a debate where intellectual honesty rules the day…not political propaganda and agendas.

well, go easy on the wall and try reading more carefully. As my response to Will demonstrates, I am carefully avoiding political anything, let alone propaganda, and have no real agenda that I'm aware of. Now, if, on the other hand, you view sympathy for the plight of black people in this nation, and the acknowledgement that they still have very real disadvantage in our society and legal system as 'propaganda', heaven help you.

No, it’s really not about acknowledgement that black people have a disadvantage, it’s more along the lines of how you and others try to degrade anything white people accomplish, as some kind of privilege. It feels like disrespect.

But most of all, it’s the total lack of admitting that any of the problems that black people have are self-induced.

When I was about 10 years old, I went to the local grade school in North Philly (Fairhill) one day the kid who lived next to me came home and was sitting on the front steps next to me, when his mother came out and started to yell some stuff about better get inside, why are you late getting home late…blah blah…the kid replied to his mother…that the school teacher had disciplined him for misbehaving in class…the mother replied “you don’t have to listen to anything that ole white lady says” and that is a pretty close quote…because I can still hear her to this day.

Now on the other hand if I had any such notions of not listening to what my teacher said, I would have gone to bed without any dinner…for a week!

Who do you think grew up with the better respect for education?

Maybe someday I will tell the story of the origins of my family, how my particular branch of it ended up in poverty, and how we managed to dig out of that poverty, coming out of the exact same environment as the southern blacks that migrated to North Philly in the early 60’s.

Just to shed some light on why I think the way I do.