# George Zimmerman outcome



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Well the jury has decided. Zimmerman's actions were shown to be within legal limits as to State law. As they heard/saw more of the "evidence", I am hardly in a position to disagree. What I can disagree with is the African American community's decision to press the U.S. government to file federal "hate crime" charges. There seems to be no proof of such from what I've seen. Is it just me or would anyone unknown to a community be considered suspect under such circumstances? Wear a face mask into a bank & see the reaction. You'd have no pity from the U.S. judicial system. Odd that of the main players, only Martin was shown to gave used racial slurs (cracker). Could it not be shown that Martin was involved in a hate crime when he was killed? Is it not somewhat odd that the police & prosecutor refused to file charges until the "black" community insisted they do so?

One of the more interesting thoughts: At what point are we allowed self defense? When someone is following us? I agree it's rather intimidating & may present a threat. When our head is being pounded on concrete ( which poses a more direct threat of physical harm)?

The press, which provides shoddy (imagine an i & 2 t's instead) information certainly played it up with photos of a sweet 10 year old & others of a thug want to be. George was played the same way. 

Another issue. .Since when is a 17 y.o. a "child"? At best it's late ado. Especially coming from a country known to prosecute 12-14 year olds as adults


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

It's hard to know where to begin. From where I stand, Zimmerman profiled the kid, and called 911 to report him although no crime I know of was committed. In my mind, that was profiling.

After he followed the kid, accounts vary. In the end, there was a scuffle and a 17 year old who had been walking home peaceably is dead. The man who pulled the trigger is free.

Race is a huge issue in America. The civil rights advances in the late 20th century helped matters but racial equality is far from reality today. Especially in the criminal justice system. This tragedy and its aftermath did not help and is illustrative of the problem.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I still doubt that a 17 y.o. is a kid as there's not a court of law in the u.s. that wouldn't put him on trial as an adult if he were to commit a serious crime. The fact that Zimmerman weighed more was used against him, but in reality what overweight middle aged man can overtake the energy of a young man?

If a person in a hoodie has been reported as a criminal suspect in the neighborhood is it really profiling? If a news report stated a group of white kids were raping people would it be profiling to avoid a group of white kids? Would it be profiling if they were black? 

Some would argue that the inequality lies in the amount of criminal activity commited within the African-American community. 80% of crime by 30% of the population. Many figures have shown that black on black violence is first, black on white s econd & white on black in the 4th-5th position. Why are onlt the Zimmermans concentrated on?

One doesn't have to commit a crime to be suspected of such. I fail to see how someone calling the police on a strange person acting oddly can be seen as profiling.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> It's hard to know where to begin. From where I stand, Zimmerman profiled the kid, and called 911 to report him although no crime I know of was committed. In my mind, that was profiling.


 When did that become a crime? I have folks walking by my place all the time and if some one looks out of place they get a much closer look, too far out of place will bring a confrontation . As you posted Zimmerman was watching Martin and was obviously concerned enough to call the authorities. Exactly what one is supposed to do in that situation.


> After he followed the kid, accounts vary. In the end, there was a scuffle and a 17 year old who had been walking home peaceably is dead.


 So you really believe a dully formed and informed jury in Florida found Zimmerman 'Not Guilty' for killing a 17 year old for nothing more than ' peaceably walking home' ? Seems you pick your facts carefully and I wonder just how do you know that Martin was being peaceable? .


> The man who pulled the trigger is free.


 Just maybe that fact should tell you something about what actually happened at the scene. Surely you have heard that Zimmernam claims he was attacked, and the verdict supports his version ,not yours.


> Race is a huge issue in America. The civil rights advances in the late 20th century helped matters but racial equality is far from reality today.


 Yes were Zimmerman black or Martin white the case never would have gone to trial


> no Especially in the criminal justice system. This tragedy and its aftermath did not help and is illustrative of the problem.


 Once again Im curious as to how you know race had anything do with the events, and much more curious as to how you know race was the over riding factor?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

wdrazek said:


> It's hard to know where to begin. From where I stand, Zimmerman profiled the kid, and called 911 to report him although no crime I know of was committed. In my mind, that was profiling.
> 
> After he followed the kid, accounts vary. In the end, there was a scuffle and a 17 year old who had been walking home peaceably is dead. The man who pulled the trigger is free.
> 
> ......


Unless we are able to read Zimmerman's mind, the 911 tape indicates that Zimmerman did not bring race into his report until the 911 Dispatcher asked if the subject were "white, Hispanic, black." Zimmerman simply answered a question that the 911 Operator asked of him, stating "he appears to be black." That doesn't sound like profiling to me. The 17 year old "kid," given his age and physical size was more man than child and from most of the testimony during trial, he was no passive little waif (as so many are trying to suggest), cowering in the presence of 'big, bad Mr Zimmerman.' Taking all the emotion out of it, we are left with two physically comparable, yet emotionally foolish men who acted/reacted intemperately and recklessly. One died, as a consequence of both of their choices! Sad, but true!


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Hitch said:


> When did that become a crime? I have folks walking by my place all the time and if some one looks out of place they get a much closer look, too far out of place will bring a confrontation . As you posted Zimmerman was watching Martin and was obviously concerned enough to call the authorities. Exactly what one is supposed to do in that situation. So you really believe a dully formed and informed jury in Florida found Zimmerman 'Not Guilty' for killing a 17 year old for nothing more than ' peaceably walking home' ? Seems you pick your facts carefully and I wonder just how do you know that Martin was being peaceable? . Just maybe that fact should tell you something about what actually happened at the scene. Surely you have heard that Zimmernam claims he was attacked, and the verdict supports his version ,not yours. Yes were Zimmerman black or Martin white the case never would have gone to trial Once again Im curious as to how you know race had anything do with the events, and much more curious as to how you know race was the over riding factor?


We obviously live in different America's. I wish I lived in the one you live in where everyone is equal under the law, the court system is color blind and the outcomes are always fair.

On the other hand, I regret that I live in an America where I could be shot dead for no real reason, because someone said that they thought I was endangering them. And if I was black, there would be almost nothing that could put the defendant away.

I served on a jury this summer and got a very clear picture of what goes on behind those doors. If you think that any significant portion of the African-American population lives with the fantasies you do, you would be wrong. And there are centuries of history, including up to the present day, they bear it out.

This was handed down the day before Zimmerman was exonerated.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

wdrazek said:


> We obviously live in different America's. I wish I lived in the one you live in where everyone is equal under the law, the court system is color blind and the outcomes are always fair.


 Your shrillness tells me you have nothing of substance to support your assertions. You do know know the things you have asserted


> On the other hand, I regret that I live in an America where I could be shot dead for no real reason, because someone said that they thought I was endangering them.


 If you attack and bloody some one they have been, whether you like it or not' endangered' , and you just might be delt with harshly, and deserve it .


> And if I was black, there would be almost nothing that could put the defendant away.


 Its possible there are enough folks like you who hate facts and evidence preferring fantasy, cant help ya there


> I served on a jury this summer and got a very clear picture of what goes on behind those doors. If you think that any significant portion of the African-American population lives with the fantasies you do, you would be wrong. And there are centuries of history, including up to the present day, they bear it out.


 Hmmm It is not a fantasy that one should call 911 when suspicious of another,as happened in this case, but what your sentence really means is beyond my understanding.

This was handed down the day before Zimmerman was exonerated.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing[/QUOTE]


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

wdrazek said:


> This was handed down the day before Zimmerman was exonerated.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing


For the time being, I'm going to restrain myself from commenting much on the entire Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman tragedy. Regardless of your view on the disputed facts of the case, it's always sad when parents bury a child.

The other case you posted absolutely infuriates me, although I don't think that decision was rendered the day before Zimmerman was exonerated. Perhaps there are facts in that case not reported in the media (which wouldn't surprise me) but the facts I have seen suggest this poor woman should not have been convicted of any crime, and her abusive husband should have been locked up in a hole.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

wdrazek said:


> We obviously live in different America's. I wish I lived in the one you live in where everyone is equal under the law, the court system is color blind and the outcomes are always fair.
> 
> On the other hand, I regret that I live in an America where I could be shot dead for no real reason, because someone said that they thought I was endangering them. And if I was black, there would be almost nothing that could put the defendant away.
> 
> ...


Dont mind Hitch...he is a straight up dolt that is incapable of having a civil discussion out here. You will never convince him to reconsider his neanderthal beliefs of an America from the Jim Crow days of the past. Dont sweat it.

The bottom line on this case for me is simple:

GZ is a flunkey who could never pass the physical or mental exams to become a "real cop" -but he took a job as a rent a cop with a chip on his shoulder.
He followed a guy AFTER the dispatcher told him not to.
He confronted the teenager and when he got his ass handed to him, he shot him...and claimed self defense?

If a bear attacks your camp ground, you can shoot to protect your family. That is self defense.
If you go out into the woods to find a bear cave, AFTER a park ranger warned you not to....find a cave, kick the bear and wake him up. You cannot claim self defense when the bear rips your head off. Period.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

The differences in the case you posted and the Zimmerman case are vast. She committed aggravated assault and so stand your ground had no meaning in her case. The story pretty clearly points out that after the altercation, she left to the garage after passing two other unobstructed exits, picked up a gun, went back into the house, and fired a shot at her husband. Other stories not that this wasn't a shot into the ceiling, but she shot AT him and missed. That's malicious intent. Once she reinserted herself into the situation, she became the aggressor. Had she shot at him while he was trying to strangle her, it would be a different story and she would have gotten off on stand your ground. It also didn't help that when she fired at her husband, her children were standing behind him. Another issue is that she claims to have fired a warning shot, which indicates that she didn't believe that lethal force was necessary to remove herself from danger. She also never contacted police about the incident and lied to police about even being in the home when initially questioned her. Then, while out on bail, she went back to the house against court orders numerous times. All of these things indicate that she wasn't fearing for her life at all, and much of the evidence points toward malicious intent rather than self defense. 

You should probably cross check your news sources when forming an argument, especially in such hyper-polarizing cases.

EDIT: it is also very worth noting that Zimmerman didn't assert a stand your ground defense, just self defense.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> Dont mind Hitch...he is a straight up dolt that is incapable of having a civil discussion out here. You will never convince him to reconsider his neanderthal beliefs of an America from the Jim Crow days of the past. Dont sweat it.
> 
> The bottom line on this case for me is simple:
> 
> ...


This stinks of hypocrisy. You sound equally as unwilling to have a discussion that doesn't conform to your own beliefs.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Tilton said:


> This stinks of hypocrisy. You sound equally as unwilling to have a discussion that doesn't conform to your own beliefs.


What part of my scenario is incorrect?

People who start confrontations - should not get to claim self defense.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> What part of my scenario is incorrect?
> 
> People who start confrontations - should not get to claim self defense.


Wasn't Mr Zimmerman a neighourhood watch officer? Isn't it a reasonable expectation of his role, in this capacity, to investigate potentially suspicious elements within the community? Can undertaking that duty be considered as starting a confrontation?

,

,
,
,
,
,

This moron spouting his pro-Trayvon racially prejudiced bile has a PhD apparently!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/glory-hallelujah-did-tray_b_3599482.html


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

mrkleen said:


> People who start confrontations - should not get to claim self defense.


Well said. That is how it should be.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Wasn't Mr Zimmerman a neighourhood watch officer? Isn't it a reasonable expectation of his role, in this capacity, to investigate potentially suspicious elements within the community? Can undertaking that duty be considered as starting a confrontation?
> 
> ,
> 
> ...


Indeed, George Zimmerman was not a "rent-a-cop," as mrkleen so erroneously suggests, but rather a 'Good Neighbor,' volunteering his time as a "neighborhood watch" volunteer...a group that was organized by the sub-division that served as host for the tragedy that occurred, in response to a continuing rash of home invasions/break-ins that had victimized Zimmerman and his neighbors to the point the residents felt they needed to get personally involved. George Zimmerman was a public spirited, well intended member of his community. How exactly should he have known that Martin was not simply another intruder in his neighborhood, intent on victimizing Zimmerman or one of his neighbors. While his death may be tragic, Martins actions, after the initial confrontation (as documented by the testimony of multiple witnesses) certainly doesn't qualify him as an innocent waif and potential martyr in my book!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> What part of my scenario is incorrect?
> 
> People who start confrontations - should not get to claim self defense.


The part about insulting Hitch because his views aren't the same as your views.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, George Zimmerman was not a "rent-a-cop," as mrkleen so erroneously suggests, but rather a 'Good Neighbor,' volunteering his time as a "neighborhood watch" volunteer...a group that was organized by the sub-division that served as host for the tragedy that occurred, in response to a continuing rash of home invasions/break-ins that had victimized Zimmerman and his neighbors to the point the residents felt they needed to get personally involved. George Zimmerman was a public spirited, well intended member of his community. How exactly should he have known that Martin was not simply another intruder in his neighborhood, intent on victimizing Zimmerman or one of his neighbors. While his death may be tragic, Martins actions, after the initial confrontation (as documented by the testimony of multiple witnesses) certainly doesn't qualify him as an innocent waif and potential martyr in my book!


As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have mattered if Zimmerman saw Martin smashing car windows or walking out of a neighbor's house with a plasma TV, the dispatcher would be required to tell Zimmerman not to get involved, strictly for liability reasons. Can you imagine the lawsuits against the police department, city, dispatcher, etc. had they told Zimmerman to confront or approach Martin and Martin or Zimmerman was injured in the ensuing fight?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The facts that matter are these:

1. Zimmerman called the non-emergency police dispatcher to report a suspicious person (later described as standing on the lawn of a local resident); The co-ordinator of neighborhood watch programs testified that this call was perfectly according to protocol. 
2. During the call, he moved his truck twice while continuing to talk to the dispatcher. 
3. Trayvon Martin remarked his truck in a noticeable way. Zimmerman noted that to the dispatcher in real time ("here he's checking me out").
4. Martin heads up a walkway perpendicular to and connecting two residential streets and an alleyway where the back entrances of the houses on each face.
5. Martin abruptly runs out of sight. (This is remarked on the call).
6. Zimmerman gets out of his truck while continuing to speak to the dispatcher. He heads along the walkway. He is asked if he is following Martin. He replies yes. He is told that is not needed. He says 'OK'. The point is moot. Martin is out of sight and never resurfaces during the course of the call. The dispatcher testified that the department does not as a matter of policy issue instructions or orders in these circumstances. 
7. Zimmerman heads to the residential street on the far end of the walkway to check an address, then decides to leave his phone number for the police to call him when they arrive in lieu of meeting them at a pre-determined point. He elects against giving his home address. 
8. Here is a handy map of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Complex https://zimmerman-vs-martin.blogspot.com/2013/01/retreat-at-twin-lakes-map.html
•	The fight commenced at the point marked 3. (Zimmerman's key chain was dropped at that point) and concluded at point 4. What George Zimmerman was doing there (loitering about waiting for the police to arrive) is passably explained by the call to the non-emergency police dispatcher. (Not all of his movements are explained, but his presence is explained)
•	Point "3″ is along a walkway which connects two streets which run parallel for a time. One is called "Twin Trees Lane" and the other "Retreat View Circle". George Zimmerman's truck was parked near where this walkway connects with "Twin Trees Lane"
•	Trayvon Martin passed by George Zimmerman's truck during the course of the phone call. Given the distances involved, it would have taken Trayvon Martin between 2 and 3.5 minutes to return home at an ordinary loping pace, depending on which of three routes he might use. (Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher for another couple of minutes). 
•	Martin proceeded from Zimmerman's truck up the walkway to point 3, then abruptly ran out of sight. The townhouse of Brandi Green, his father's baby-mamma was about 85 yards away down the block (its front door facing Retreat View Circle). It would have taken him less than 20 seconds to get to the back door and get inside. 
•	Martin shows up about four minutes later and breaks George Zimmerman's nose at some point between point "3″ and point "4″ on the map.
•	Either Martin walked back up the block (85 yards or more) to where George Zimmerman was schlepping around or Martin hid in some shrubbery or hid in in some shadows and then re-emerged. Neither would be indicative of someone whose objects were benign, though I suppose you could manufacture some excuse.
9. You can see from a map of the complex that the distance from where Trayvon Martin disappeared to the back door of his father's baby-mamma was about 85 yards. He could have loped right past Zimmerman's truck and been home in less than two minutes - before Zimmerman ever got off the phone. From where he abruptly ran out of sight, he could have been home in less than 20 seconds. Yet, about two minutes later he resurfaces and fights George Zimmerman. 
10. We have a passable idea of where this fight began (the location of where Zimmerman dropped his key chain was recorded in crime scene photos). 
11. We have a passable idea of who slugged whom (the autopsy report showed Martin had a gunshot wound and an abrasion on one knuckle; Zimmerman was photographed at the scene and follow up medical reports show he had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of the head.
12. an eyewitness standing right there said Martin was straddled over Zimmerman pummeling him.
13. The mess of forensic evidence indicates Martin was shot at 'intermediate range' (a term of art meaning 0.4″ to 4′) and was leaning over when shot and that the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the cloth of his outergarments. 
14. There is about two minutes missing from the timeline that has never been filled in with objective evidence or the word disinterested witnesses. The thing is, nothing has emerged to indicate that Zimmerman was doing anything but loitering about on a walkway waiting for the police. That's where he was talking to the dispatcher and that is around where his key chain was located. No evidence has emerged which demonstrates he ever went anywhere else or caught sight of Trayvon Martin in the interval between when Martin disappeared down the alleyway and when he resurfaced and broke George Zimmerman's nose. 
15. There are quite a mess of people who hold George Zimmerman culpable for schlepping about his own neighborhood waiting for a police patrol (after having committed the novel crime of felonious truck egress) or for calling the cops (as if walking around aimlessly in the rain, standing on the lawn of a person unknown to you, staring down a person in their vehicle talking on the phone, and running out of sight a propos of nothing in particular were&#8230;perfectly unremarkable. Indeed, perfectly unremarkable in a neighborhood that had had a rash of burglaries which included the home of the man on whose lawn you were standing). 
16. You get into these conversations and you realize that for some people, George Zimmerman is not an individual who did certain things and did not do other things. He is an icon of a mess of things they find wrong with the world. George Zimmerman is replaced with a literary character of their own imagining ('wanna-be cop, Bruce Wayne, &c). But they have argued themselves into a corner in which the rest of us might not wish to stand: the notion that ordinary people are culpable when feral young men decide to practice their MMA moves on them, because it is perfectly normal for said punks to assault 'creepy' people they fancy have 'disrespected' them. If that's your idea of an appropriate rule governing social relations, I ask you please not to move to any community in which I am living. We will all be safer when you and the rest of the liberal chatterati, who seem to think Zimmerman should have had Veritatis Splendor uppermost in his mind while Trayvon Martin was smacking his head into the concrete, have their own colony and are away from centers of civilization.

Hat tip and thanks to blogger Art Deco.

Now, my editorial: We will never know to a moral certainty what happened. We know what the evidence can tell us. Is it possible that the Democrat Obama-supporter George Zimmerman was a bigot who picked a fight with and then murdered an innocent young African-American boy? Sure, but such a belief in the face of the evidence cannot be grounded in anything resembling reason or fairness.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

" the dispatcher would be required to tell Zimmerman not to get involved, strictly for liability reasons. "

In fact, the operator testified that the reason they ALWAYS give the disclaimer of need to follow (NOT an instruction not to follow) is because of liability concerns.

Look, I don't know what happened that night in terms of who started the fight. But the forensic evidence makes pretty clear that Martin was atop Zimmerman when Zimmerman fired and was landing effective blows. In grown-up world, as opposed to a rough school's playground, you DON'T get into fistfights. And if you do, you do NOT follow the other guy to the ground if you knock him down. Following someone to the ground and continuing to attack is serious business. It's liable to get you shot, or, failing that, convicted for aggravated battery or murder.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

"This was handed down the day before Zimmerman was exonerated. 

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justic...und-sentencing"

This has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. The defendant there was in no imminent danger of any harm, much less grave bodily injury or death. Her warning shot went through an interior wall and through a room where children were. "Warning shots" are almost never a good idea, and almost never legal, contrary to Vice-President Biden's ill-concieved advice.

Now, I certainly agree that a 20 year sentence is absurd. I have heard, but do not know, that the sentence was driven by Florida's tough-on-gun-crime sentencing requirements. (Similar to the fact that the likely sentences for Zimmerman if convicted of manslaughter versus M2 were scarcely distinguishable.) In a perfect world, the woman would have been either put into a diversion/non-pros program or given a suspended sentence. But she clearly broke the law. The state did not have clear evidence that Zimmerman did. The disparate outcomes are NOT proof that race was a factor in either case.

FWIW, I think there is plenty of racism embedded in the criminal justice system. The Zimmerman case is just incredibly poor evidence of it.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Why let facts get in the way of race baiting?

The most perspicuous summation I've seen of the entire affair is this: a jury of women acquitted a Hispanic of killing a black...but it's the white man's fault. That's the story peddled by most of the media, and that's what a great many people believe.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> FWIW, I think there is plenty of racism embedded in the criminal justice system. The Zimmerman case is just incredibly poor evidence of it.


Agreed on both counts.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> (after having committed the novel crime of felonious truck egress)


Hilarious! I love it.

Here are some of the big divides in the case:

Some people think that having a (lawfully-carried) gun makes you presumptively the bad guy. Some do not.

Some people think that you have a duty to mind your own business. Some do not.

Some people think that once you have called the police about something you deem suspicious, you are legally obligated to hide in some building or vehicle. Some do not.

Some people think that it is a *crime *(as opposed to merely a bad thing) for a private citizen to have any kind of bias or prejudice regarding race and likelihood of crime. Some do not.

Some people think that if you breach any of the foregoing duties, you have waived your right to self-defense and must accept whatever comes, including a beating. Some do not.

Some people think that if you suspect someone of perhaps being a criminal and they are not, you are morally and legally culpable for anything that flows from that suspicion. Some do not.

Some people think that being annoying, or creepy, or giving someone an ugly look, or being an officious busybody means that you deserve a good beating. Some do not.

Some people think that if a person ever shoots an unarmed person, regardless of circumstances, a _p__er se _crime has been committed_._ Some do not.

Some people think that if an adult kills a minor, regardless of circumstances, a _per se _crime has been committed. Some do not.

Some people think that taking a beating is just not a big deal, and that either: death and/or brain damage cannot follow from it; or, if it does, it's just kind of bad luck. Some do not.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hilarious! I love it.
> 
> Here are some of the big divides in the case:
> 
> ...


Excellent observations, Cuff.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> People who start confrontations - should not get to claim self defense.


What counts as "starting a confrontation"? If someone parks a truck on my front lawn, and I tell them they need to move it, have I started a confrontation? What if someone is driving 50mph down a quiet, non-arterial residential street and I shout at the car "slow down!" Have I started a confrontation? If I see a tatted-up guy in my neighborhood that I don't recognize and I look at him as he passes, and even walk out to the end of my driveway to maintain a view of him until he gets down the road a way, have I started a confrontation?

I need some guideance, please; I have done every single one of these things in recent memory, and if I am waiving my legal rights by so doing, I would like to know.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> " the dispatcher would be required to tell Zimmerman not to get involved, strictly for liability reasons. "


Right. IE - Zimmerman is NOT a cop, and it is not his job to confront and engage suspicious people. He is there to make observations and call trained professionals (which he is not) to act on leads they believe are credible. The fact that he carries his personal gun. The fact that he had multiple opportunities to identify himself and did not- makes him the aggressor in this situation.

The whole idea that you can swat a hornets nest and then cry self defense when your are getting the hell stung out of you rings hollow.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Wasn't Mr Zimmerman a neighourhood watch officer? Isn't it a reasonable expectation of his role, in this capacity, to investigate potentially suspicious elements within the community? Can undertaking that duty be considered as starting a confrontation?


Zimmerman was WELL beyond the scope of his role as a member of a neighborhood watch program (watch being the optimum word)

1. Not visible as a member of the local neighborhood watch (not even a T-shirt for uniform, didn't announce himself, nothing)
2. Carried firearm concealed (a gun is not a deterrent if it isn't visible, and in the role of neighborhood watch, the only reason to have a gun at all is to deter violence)
3. Confronted his "suspect" instead of waiting for the police to arrive. (if you aren't a cop, your job is to call the cops, not to be one).

All three of those actions would have gotten him fired from a security company (as would packing ANY kind of weapon if his guard contract didn't specify that he should carry. Most guards have a flashlight and a radio, and only the radio is supposed to be used in a situation like this)

The primary thing to understand about being a Security Guard is that you exist to lower insurance rates. By contrast, a Police Officer is there to actually intervene in crimes in progress and to solve crimes after the fact. This is why security guards make a pittance over minimum wage and get about 1 day of training plus some pamphlets, and police officers make a good income, have unions, medical insurance, pensions and typically go through actual schooling (eg Police Acadamy). They certainly have to pass some kind of testing


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Right. IE - Zimmerman is NOT a cop, and it is not his job to confront and engage suspicious people. He is there to make observations and call trained professionals (which he is not) to act on leads they believe are credible. The fact that he carries his personal gun. The fact that he had multiple opportunities to identify himself and did not- makes him the aggressor in this situation.
> 
> The whole idea that you can swat a hornets nest and then cry self defense when your are getting the hell stung out of you rings hollow.


1. Are you under the impression that it is illegal, or even immoral, to swat at hornets that are trying to sting you to death just because you provoked them?

2. "The fact that he carries his personal gun." He carried his gun almost everywhere he went. So what? He was legally entitled to do that. It proves nothing legally relevant.

3. If I'm looking at someone I deem suspicious, I am obligated to identify myself? Really? What's your basis?

4. Keeping an eye on someone is "act[ing] on leads"?

Having, in your view, overstepped his bounds in some way, you think Zimmerman was obligated to accept being beaten even unto death?

Which of these "aggressor" things was illegal? Do you contend that one can do NOTHING illegal, yet waive the right to self-defense? How long does this waiver last? Is there anything you can do to regain your rights?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> 1. Not visible as a member of the local neighborhood watch (not even a T-shirt for uniform, didn't announce himself, nothing)


Right. Of course, he wasn't "on duty" that night, was he? He was on the way to the store when he saw someone who met the description of those committing recent criminal acts in the same neighborhood.



> 2. Carried firearm concealed (a gun is not a deterrent if it isn't visible, and in the role of neighborhood watch, the only reason to have a gun at all is to deter violence)


That's absurd. Florida does not generally ALLOW open carry. Second, the point of lawful concealed carry is not to specifically deter attacks. It is to be able to deal with one when it arises.

But this is, I suspect, the real crux of your feelings. You just don't think private citizens should be allowed to have guns. OK, you can have that opinion. But that's not a basis to convict someone of murder.



> 3. Confronted his "suspect" instead of waiting for the police to arrive.


Was this "confrontation" verbal? Did Zimmerman say anything at all to Martin? Did he touch Martin? How close did he come to Martin voluntarily? If there was evidence of those things, maybe the prosecution would have introduced it, don't you think? Also, still waiting for guidance on whether I've been "confronting" people in a way that earns me a beating. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...eorge-Zimmerman-outcome&p=1426845#post1426845



> All three of those actions would have gotten him fired from a security company (as would packing ANY kind of weapon if his guard contract didn't specify that he should carry.


So what? The trial was not an unemployment benefits hearing. It was about whether Zimmerman broke the law. Doing something that a hypothetical employer might have wanted you not to do if you had been employed by them, and if they had selected a particular non-universal policy, is not really relevant to whether you broke the law. At all.

ETA: I typed this while eating lunch at my desk. Some employers (not mine, but some) prohibit receptionists (not my job, but some people's job) from eating lunch at their desks. What is the legal consequence to me?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Right. IE - Zimmerman is NOT a cop, and it is not his job to confront and engage suspicious people. He is there to make observations and call trained professionals (which he is not) to act on leads they believe are credible. The fact that he carries his personal gun. The fact that he had multiple opportunities to identify himself and did not- makes him the aggressor in this situation.
> 
> The whole idea that you can swat a hornets nest and then cry self defense when your are getting the hell stung out of you rings hollow.


I can accept your comparison of Martin to a hornets nest. On this much we agree. :icon_smile:



mrkleen said:


> Zimmerman was WELL beyond the scope of his role as a member of a neighborhood watch program (watch being the optimum word)
> 
> 1. Not visible as a member of the local neighborhood watch (not even a T-shirt for uniform, didn't announce himself, nothing)
> 2. Carried firearm concealed (a gun is not a deterrent if it isn't visible, and in the role of neighborhood watch, the only reason to have a gun at all is to deter violence)
> ...


Mr Zimmerman was not working for a security company, so he has no need to comply with security guard regulations, he was a concerned member of the public giving up his time for the benefit of his community.

We must be able to agree that a man has the right to increase the safety of his home area without wearing a uniform?

I do not rely on the police to protect me nor do I expect anyone else to be limited in this manner.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

It all just boils down to those 2 minutes no one alive but Zimmerman knows for sure what actually happened.

The self defense laws of Florida require the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmer did not act in self defense. Other states require the defendant to prove by a preponderance or otherwise shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant.

In this case, it was pretty much impossible to overcome that burden given the evidence they had. The prosecution needed some sort of smoking gun to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor. No such evidence was presented.

edit:
And the racial elements just boggle my mind. This is minority on minority violence. Why don't they get upset about this happening every week in Los Angeles....


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

"Other states require the defendant to prove by a preponderance or otherwise shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant."

Which other states? I'm aware of only two. Most states have the burden just as Florida does.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

For the record, there are indeed security guard unions and many do receive employment benefits.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Why don't they get upset about this happening every week in Los Angeles....


Because the latinos there look more latino than Zimmerman.

What's more mind-boggling is that since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom (war in Afghanistan) the murder rate in Chicago compared to fatalities of American forces in Afghanistan is 2:1. In fact, murders in Chicago in 2012 alone are equivalent to roughly a quarter of all KIA and non-hostile deaths of US armed forces in Afghanistan since 2001.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> "Other states require the defendant to prove by a preponderance or otherwise shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant."
> 
> Which other states? I'm aware of only two. Most states have the burden just as Florida does.


Unless the state legislature in their infinite Republican and gun loving wisdom changed the law, Arizona does.

When in law school, I recall the professors stating that self defense is generally an affirmative defense in the majority of jurisdictions. But could be wrong. Not something I keep track of.

Wikipedia says most jurisdictions make it an affirmative defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)#Legal_status_of_self-defense

However, it's wikipedia. I'm not going to go comb through law reviews to see what the current state is.

I'm fairly certain that it's an affirmative defense under the common law too.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

And now our president has weighed in with more race-baiting remarks. "Trayvon could have been me." It's subtle, but you see the implication? Trayvon was killed not in the commission of a crime (at the very least assault and battery), but because he was black -- unless the president is suggesting that he "ground and pound" Latinos in Hawaii or Indonesia and got away with it. Obama also alluded to the history of racism in America "which doesn't go away." He means, of course, racism from whites. I guess the white half of Zimmerman (though he self-identifies as Latino) got the better of him...one wonders about the racist white half of Obama.

Really, the interjection of race into a case in which it blatantly had nothing whatsoever to do with events is utterly disgusting. I had hoped that a two-term African-American president would help the country move away from its past, but it seems like we're slouching backwards, at least in part because he sees everything through the prism of race.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Florida CALLS it an affirmative defense, but, once the defense puts on any evidence of SD, shifts the burden back.

Eugene Volokh contends that all states but Ohio put the burden on the prosecution (https://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/burden-and-quantum-of-proof-on-self-defense/), though I believe that Virginia does as well.

I know Georgia has that view (and not just for self-defense): https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...firmative-defense-definition-burden-of-proof/

Same for that gun-slinging state of New York: https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...deadly-physical-force-in-defense-of-a-person/

Arizona puts the burden of proof on the state: "The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with such justification. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge.

So does California: https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...f-defense-or-defense-of-another-non-homicide/

Florida's self-defense law is in no way peculiar, despite the misleading news coverage. And, in the criminal context, just because it is called an "affirmative defense" does not mean that the defendant carries the burden. (In contrast, that's usually exactly what it means in civil proceedings, as you probably know.)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Pentheos, have you actually heard the whole speech, or even read the transcript? Don't just listen to the 10 seconds that the media picked for you.

Excerpts from speech that, were a pro-Zimmerman person to give it a fair listen, he/she would find comforting: 

"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. " 

"And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear." 

"Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence." 
"I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. " 
"And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." [DOES ANYONE NOT THINK THAT SENSE EXISTS? NOTICE THAT HE DID NOT CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OR STATE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME AS FACT, JUST THAT A SENSE EXISTS] 
" I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. " 

"I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels." 

"And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. " 

"And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions." 

This is the kind of stuff that makes me like him, and glad I voted for him twice.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> This is the kind of stuff that makes me like him, and glad I voted for him twice.


As did George Zimmerman, according to his brother.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Thanks, Cuff, but I did read the speech before writing. I'm not really sure how you could read it and still think that it's not race-baiting in a legal case which had nothing to do with race. But if you're disposed to like the guy, then it's no surprise you believe his comments are measured and appropriate. I do not. Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism? Now dissent is proof of racism.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I did not see him accusing anyone of racism.

Plenty of people aggreived at the verdict are doing just that. And it's extremely tiresome. But President Obama is not one of them.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

6 jurors chosen by the defense and the State of Florida heard and considered the evidence in the case. The jurors spent 16 hours deliberating to reach their verdict. The court entered judgement on the verdict. The issue of race relations belongs in another fora: the legislature.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> I did not see him accusing anyone of racism.
> 
> Plenty of people aggreived at the verdict are doing just that. And it's extremely tiresome. But President Obama is not one of them.


I agree with this completely. That said, he should be smart enough to know which elements of his remarks will be picked up by the media -- both conservative blogs as well as MSM (each with their own agendas). Sometimes it is most prudent to say nothing, or to issue only a well-crafted sound bite without a context that can be ignored.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I would think that the remarks of Holder while addressing the NAACP are more relevant to the current political climate than those of the American "Faceman" who's often called Mr. president. Does the A.G. not take orders from the executive branch (& the current controlling political party) under the guise of an "independent entity"? If Holder is crying as to the outcome, can we not in reality take it as a viewpoint of the Obama regime? It appears to me that this guy is advocating that self-defense should be redefined in order to fit into a criminal category that covers the current Trayvon situation.

I admit that I didn't read the whole speech & am relying on what various other sources have stated. Can anyone contradict this information?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> I did not see him accusing anyone of racism.


I never said he did. I accused him of fanning the flames of racism.

From his speech: "And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

I interpret this to mean that if a white male teen was shot and killed by a Latino male, then the Latino male would have been convicted of at least manslaughter -- but since the male teen was African American, the Latino goes free because of institutionalized racism in the American judicial system. In other words, Trayvon's race -- not Zimmerman's, not some hypothetical white teen -- dictated the outcome of the trial. If anyone can provide an alternative reading, I'd be happy to see it. How are Obama's words not divisive? How do they not suggest that there are two judicial systems in America, one for whites and another for everyone else? How do they not interject race into a criminal situation where it evidently played no role?


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Pentheos said:


> How are Obama's words not divisive? How do they not suggest that there are two judicial systems in America, one for whites and another for everyone else?


I'm sorry but if you don't realize that whites and blacks have widely diverging judicial systems in America today, and always have, you are deluding yourself. And you have lost all credibility. At least on this issue.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

wdrazek said:


> I'm sorry but if you don't realize that whites and blacks have widely diverging judicial systems in America today, and always have, you are deluding yourself. And you have lost all credibility. At least on this issue.


One wonders if the divide is more as to poor-rich versus black-white. Is it racism in the "judicial" system versus the lack of experienced representation? A team of lawyers & hired experts will get you further than an unexperienced, overworked, underpaid public defender that has no budget/time for witnesses that can help the case. 10 lawyers working for a large firm that is seeking fortune & fame out of a case can devote all their time to a single case....What public defender has such resources? Black, white, hispanic. .It matters not....If you're poor (or not infamous), you're going to jail.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Pentheos, read that quote carefully. Obama did not say, "If ... then the outcome would have been different." He said all the factors detailed in his speech contributed to a SENSE that if...then. There is no way to doubt that many people, especially African-Americans, feel if...then. They do, indisputably, have that SENSE. And that SENSE comes, inarguably, from the kind of experiences he describes. Talk to an actual black person about this case, and the odds are high (though not certain) that they will feel if... then. 

I think that they are wrong about that, and that, if they are right, that's not a reason to punish Zimmerman, but a reason to try to provide more fair trials to AA defendants going forward. But that's easy for me to say. My blond-haired, blue-eyed daughter will probably never be falsely profiled as anything but a conservative. 

I think acknowledging the reality of people's feelings about the case, and that they are based on experience, not mere media manipulation (though there was certainly lots of that), is the first step to getting PAST this individual case. 

And look at the expectation-setting on federal charges. They're going to run the traps and give it a thorough look. Then they can truthfully tell people, "hey, we looked, there's nothing there to work with. The guy didn't even say the kid was black until the operator SPECIFICALLY asked him to identify the person's race."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Just', I think that's a big contributor. Race and class are still very closely tied in America. Go to a rural white county in, say, the ozarks or the appalachians.... conviction rates for white poor people there will be very high, too. Of course the quality of lawyer that one can afford makes a difference in the kind of case one presents.

The (mostly unconscious) biases of judges and juries matters, too. And of eyewitnesses. There are a lot of factors. It's not an easy problem to solve. But there was NOTHING that was EVER going to happen in the Zimmerman trial that would have addressed that. They could have strung him up on the first day, and black defendants would still mostly get a mediocre quality of justice. It's all misplaced.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Pentheos, read that quote carefully. Obama did not say, "If ... then the outcome would have been different." He said all the factors detailed in his speech contributed to a SENSE that if...then.


You're wrong. Obama said a "sense" that "if...might" all preceded by an "I think." A cleverly crafted conditional to set forth a hypothetical protasis followed by an apodosis of uncertain fulfillment. His "I think" and "sense" both remove the statement far from reality for the careful listener; however, not all will notice this -- they'll instead hear how he just said the life of a white male teen counts for more than the life of Trayvon.

Anyways, I'm now bored of this. I make it a point to never get dragged into silly internet arguments.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

wdrazek said:


> I'm sorry but if you don't realize that whites and blacks have widely diverging judicial systems in America today, and always have, you are deluding yourself. And you have lost all credibility. At least on this issue.


What evidence will you adduce to support this assertion? The black offending murder rate is *seven times higher - 600%!* - than the white and Hispanic rates *combined*. The black-on-white violent crime rate is *forty times higher - 3,900%!* - than the white-on-black violent crime rate. With shocking numbers such as these, one would expect far more convictions of blacks, and a disproportionate number (relative to their numbers in the general population) of blacks in prison.

If you don't realize this, then _you _are the one who is either "delusional", or so blinded by your political/cultural views that you have lost the ability to reason clearly ("at least on this issue").


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Tiger said:


> What evidence will you adduce to support this assertion? The black offending murder rate is *seven times higher - 600%!* - than the white and Hispanic rates *combined*. The black-on-white violent crime rate is *forty times higher - 3,900%!* - than the white-on-black violent crime rate. With shocking numbers such as these, one would expect far more convictions of blacks, and a disproportionate number (relative to their numbers in the general population) of blacks in prison.
> 
> If you don't realize this, then _you _are the one who is either "delusional", or so blinded by your political/cultural views that you have lost the ability to reason clearly ("at least on this issue").


You're such a racist.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tiger said:


> Originally Posted by *wdrazek*
> _I'm sorry but if you don't realize that whites and blacks have widely diverging judicial systems in America today, and always have, you are deluding yourself. And you have lost all credibility. At least on this issue.
> _
> What evidence will you adduce to support this assertion?


You may want to study American History. It is a very interesting topic, and there is a lot of information about it on a thing called the internet and elsewhere. The US Supreme Court has ruled on it many times. You might want to start your search there.

I hate to say it and hopefully it does not apply to you, but I find that many of the people who most vehemently oppose the fact that America is racist, especially in the courts, are racist.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

CuffDaddy said:


> Just', I think that's a big contributor. Race and class are still very closely tied in America. Go to a rural white county in, say, the ozarks or the appalachians.... conviction rates for white poor people there will be very high, too. Of course the quality of lawyer that one can afford makes a difference in the kind of case one presents.
> 
> The (mostly unconscious) biases of judges and juries matters, too. And of eyewitnesses. There are a lot of factors. It's not an easy problem to solve. But there was NOTHING that was EVER going to happen in the Zimmerman trial that would have addressed that. They could have strung him up on the first day, and black defendants would still mostly get a mediocre quality of justice. It's all misplaced.


This isn't an easy problem to solve. Unfortunately, America can be argued to have the best system of justice that money can buy. Of course, that is not true, but in reality a lot of the inequity in judicial proceedings that are tied to race may well be better tied to economics and social class.

I agree with POTUS that this particular case probably would have developed differently if the racial identities had been different. What if Martin was white and Zimmerman was black? And if Martin was white and Zimmerman was asian what would have transpired? Probably nothing like the media coverage/circus that took place.

BTW, I still find it interesting that POTUS is commonly thought of as 'Black' when he is actually biracial... as Zimmerman is.
What would the American public say is POTUS' racial heritage? I would wager than most would say "African-American" although even birthers concede that it is biracial.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I kind of think that, not only would there not have been a media circus, no charges would have been filed at all - as was the original determination of the people ordinarily charged with making that decision. But the cartoonish and reductionist narrative that "white man stalks and guns down unarmed black minor" got momentum and just could not be derailed. Even after a trial which left little doubt that Martin was in the process of beating* Zimmerman mercilessly when he was shot, some people are still hung up on that narrative.

As for your race of President Obama observation, culturally most people still seem to observe the "one drop" rule. It was a rule based in oppression, but it's still hanging around as the way most people instinctively view the matter.

* And I mean _beating_, not punching. I do not know how the fight started. But few circumstances in which one man follows another _to the ground_ can be called self-defense (by Martin). Once you're past about 5th grade, you do not follow someone to the ground and keep striking them unless you intend to cause them very, very serious injury or death.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

wdrazek said:


> You may want to study American History. It is a very interesting topic, and there is a lot of information about it on a thing called the internet and elsewhere. The US Supreme Court has ruled on it many times. You might want to start your search there. I hate to say it and hopefully it does not apply to you, but I find that many of the people who most vehemently oppose the fact that America is racist, especially in the courts, are racist.


Your "answer" is both condescending and illogical. In essence, your answer is something akin to, "America is racist, and if you disagree, you're probably a racist, too. Oh, and as for evidence, I have none, but I'll make vague and asinine references to the internet and to the Supreme Court, to create a veneer of knowledge." Gosh, I feel like I'm communicating with Hugo Black!

But perhaps you're right, maybe I should study a little U.S. history. I mean, just because I have a master's degree in this field, and have taught it for a decade, doesn't mean I know anything at all about it! Perhaps you should spend less time assailing me, and more time responding to my initial post; _ad hominem_ arguments are very unbecoming.

Lastly, rather than insisting that there are two American justice systems, maybe you should think about the enormously different behavior of the two groups in question, as demonstrated by my earlier post. Maybe there's a cause and effect factor at work here?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Tiger, aren't the figures that you're using to prove that AA's are more likely to be involved in crime derived from the CJ system? If wdrzek's position is that the CJ system is skewed against AA defendants, how does citing evidence that the CJ system convicts a lot of AA defendants a rebuttal?


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

CuffDaddy said:


> I kind of think that, not only would there not have been a media circus, no charges would have been filed at all - as was the original determination of the people ordinarily charged with making that decision. But the cartoonish and reductionist narrative that "white man stalks and guns down unarmed black minor" got momentum and just could not be derailed.
> 
> As for your race of President Obama observation, culturally most people still seem to observe the "one drop" rule. It was a rule based in oppression, but it's still hanging around as the way most people instinctively view the matter.


I tend to agree with both points. Unfortunately, the media gets a hold of certain items and then it goes viral and there is no turning back. That certainly appears to have been the case in this situation.

The existence of the "one drop" rule and its hanging on into the 21st century IMO underscores the inability for our collective American psyche to become color-blind. Five years ago, I thought it was a true showing of America's moving forward to have a "black" POTUS when in fact he is biracial. Then as now, I doubt that any significant slice of the population views him as biracial, which he clearly is. It's unfortunate.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tiger said:


> What evidence will you adduce to support this assertion? The black offending murder rate is *seven times higher - 600%!* - than the white and Hispanic rates *combined*. The black-on-white violent crime rate is *forty times higher - 3,900%!* - than the white-on-black violent crime rate. With shocking numbers such as these, one would expect far more convictions of blacks, and a disproportionate number (relative to their numbers in the general population) of blacks in prison.
> 
> If you don't realize this, then _you _are the one who is either "delusional", or so blinded by your political/cultural views that you have lost the ability to reason clearly ("at least on this issue").


Again, you are trying to prove that the US judicial system is not biased against blacks by stating that it convicts them of murder at dramatically higher rates than whites or hispanics. Seems contradictory to me.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tiger said:


> Your "answer" is both condescending and illogical. In essence, your answer is something akin to, "America is racist, and if you disagree, you're probably a racist, too. Oh, and as for evidence, I have none, but I'll make vague and asinine references to the internet and to the Supreme Court, to create a veneer of knowledge." Gosh, I feel like I'm communicating with Hugo Black!
> 
> Lastly, rather than insisting that there are two American justice systems, maybe you should think about the enormously different behavior of the two groups in question, as demonstrated by my earlier post. Maybe there's a cause and effect factor at work here?


And I feel like I'm talking to Jessie Helms.

Anyone who would argue that the court system, and especially SCOTUS for most of its history, have not come down hard against blacks either did not study history or failed to grasp it. Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Jim Crow laws, I could go on and on.

It is very clear that we see this in very different ways and probably should leave it at that and move on.


----------



## Chevo (Jan 3, 2013)

Let me preface what I am about write with the fact that I worked in law enforcement for five years prior to making a career change. I can't, for the life of me, fathom why Zimmerman pursued Martin after receiving orders to do the opposite? Of course, I may have misunderstood or misread that bit of information. And if so, I withdraw my assertion. Were this person in my unit, he would run the risk of having his arse kicked for disobeying orders. In the end, none of us, present thread contributors included, will ever know the exact facts of that day. We can, however, opine that one day Zimmerman will have to answers those questions when he meets his maker.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> And now our president has weighed in with more race-baiting remarks. "Trayvon could have been me." It's subtle, but you see the implication? Trayvon was killed not in the commission of a crime (at the very least assault and battery), but because he was black -- unless the president is suggesting that he "ground and pound" Latinos in Hawaii or Indonesia and got away with it. Obama also alluded to the history of racism in America "which doesn't go away." He means, of course, racism from whites. I guess the white half of Zimmerman (though he self-identifies as Latino) got the better of him...one wonders about the racist white half of Obama.
> 
> Really, the interjection of race into a case in which it blatantly had nothing whatsoever to do with events is utterly disgusting. I had hoped that a two-term African-American president would help the country move away from its past, but it seems like we're slouching backwards, at least in part because he sees everything through the prism of race.


I don't think the President's comments were "race baiting remarks" or in any way suggested, subtly or not, that "Trayvon was killed not in the commission of a crime, but because he was black..."! Rather, the President very eloquently explained the emotional reaction of the African American community to the verdict.

Take race out of the conversation and more closely consider the President's remarks. Regardless of color, how many of us, as teenagers, were not watched overly closely as we wandered through stores (In my day we didn't have shopping malls. We had to settle for individual stores!) and as we drove around in our (unnecessarily) hopped up cars (mine were a Mustang GT and a Dodge Challenger R/T) were kept under close watch and occasionally stopped, just because of our age and the car we were driving. More recently, while participating in road trips as part of a Harley Owners Group (composed largely of doctors, dentists, off-duty cops)), and other professionals), the notice we garnered from the average citizens, as well as from on-duty cops was frequently not positive.

When such notice was taking place, I suspect every one of us, regardless of the color of our skin, felt that we were being unnecessarily and unfairly picked on! Being "profiled," whenever it occurs, is not enjoyable regardless of one's color. Now consider how any of us would feel, it that was the way things were 'every day, all day' for all the days of our lives. As I said, I think the Presidents words and actions in this instance, very effectively put the emotional reaction in the aftermath of the trial, in the proper perspective!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> I don't think the President's comments were "race baiting remarks" or in any way suggested, subtly or not, that "Trayvon was killed not in the commission of a crime, but because he was black..."! Rather, the President very eloquently explained the emotional reaction of the African American community to the verdict.
> 
> Take race out of the conversation and more closely consider the President's remarks. Regardless of color, how many of us, as teenagers, were not watched overly closely as we wandered through stores (In my day we didn't have shopping malls. We had to settle for individual stores!) and as we drove around in our (unnecessarily) hopped up cars (mine were a Mustang GT and a Dodge Challenger R/T) were kept under close watch and occasionally stopped, just because of our age and the car we were driving. More recently, while participating in road trips as part of a Harley Owners Group (composed largely of doctors, dentists, off-duty cops)), and other professionals), the notice we garnered from the average citizens, as well as from on-duty cops was frequently not positive.
> 
> When such notice was taking place, I suspect every one of us, regardless of the color of our skin, felt that we were being unnecessarily and unfairly picked on! Being "profiled," whenever it occurs, is not enjoyable regardless of one's color. Now consider how any of us would feel, it that was the way things were 'every day, all day' for all the days of our lives. As I said, I think the Presidents words and actions in this instance, very effectively put the emotional reaction in the aftermath of the trial, in the proper perspective!


I can always count on you to make perfect sense.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I'll try to answer the points made by wdrazek and CuffDaddy as succinctly as possible:

1) It is strange how unsupported assertions about institutional racism go unchallenged, but factually supported assertions to the contrary are deemed inaccurate or contradictory

2) The data adduced has been empirically demonstrated in almost every large city, state, and on the federal level. If your argument is that the "criminal justice system" is corrupt, then what you're really saying is that there is massive collusion to discriminate against black people in every locality in all fifty states plus federally. You are taking conspiracy theories to a unfathomable realm, especially since so many local and state governments and certainly the federal government have been controlled by politically moderate-to-left adherents for _many decades_

3) Let's assume the data proffered is inaccurate/biased, as you suggest. We could always mine the data ourselves, by exploring, for instance, all of the high-crime areas of mid-size to large American cities. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., Detroit, Cleveland, and a thousand more. Want to guess what the racial make-up would be - overwhelmingly! - of the most dangerous high-crime areas? Perhaps you may find that the reality mirrors the data, which would certainly explode your theory.

4) I am neither Republican nor Democrat; I am a traditional constitutionalist, whose philosophical roots lie more with Jefferson, Mason, R.H. Lee, and much of the Anti-Federalists, rather than Hamilton, Marshall, et al. I am much more Coolidge than FDR, far more Ron Paul than just about anyone from either major party. In fact, I believe that Democrats and Republicans are, rhetoric aside, essentially the same, as they govern nearly identically: interventionist foreign policy, deficit spending, massive debt accumulation, complete ignoring of the Constitution, etc.

5) I am not a fan of the Supreme Court; two hundred plus years of subverting and manipulating the Constitution to greatly increase federal power in all branches and eviscerating state and local power assures this. Discussing Court cases via fora is nearly impossible, and I won't take the bait.

6) Politically expedient distortions of the Constitution by the federal government since its inception have been the ruination of the United States. Politicians have allowed this to happen because these transmogrifications have invariably led to an enormous expansion of political power - benefiting the politicians, but irreversibly hurting the liberty of the states (those forgotten entities long since eviscerated by the _de facto_ emasculation of the Tenth Amendment) and their citizens.

7) I wish to God that the United States didn't have a race-based violent crime problem, but we do. Ignoring this, or blaming something other than the actual cause, is foolish, because misdiagnosing the problem will never help us find a remedy.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

How succinct of you. 

I'm curious, how would you fix our "race-based violent crime problem"?

Mass incarceration only gets you so far, as we are now seeing.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

wdrazek said:


> How succinct of you. I'm curious, how would you fix our "race-based violent crime problem"?


It _was _succinct, considering I had to respond to multiple points from more than one person, and one of those people - that would be you, wdrazek - purposely neglected to respond to my previous points, and preferred to launch ad hominem attacks, obfuscate and distort reality, and substitute unsupported opinion for tangible evidence and logic.

Can I assume that your sarcasm and attempt at subject-changing means that you will continue to ignore what I've written? Or is it a polemical surrender?


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Tiger said:


> It _was _succinct, considering I had to respond to multiple points from more than one person, and one of those people - that would be you, wdrazek - purposely neglected to respond to my previous points, and preferred to launch ad hominem attacks, obfuscate and distort reality, and substitute unsupported opinion for tangible evidence and logic.
> 
> Can I assume that your sarcasm and attempt at subject-changing means that you will continue to ignore what I've written? Or is it a polemical surrender?


None of the above. I thought your thoughts on solving the "race-based violent crime problem" would prove interesting.

BTW, you don't suppose that violent crime and poverty might be linked somehow, do you? Just a thought...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

wdrazek said:


> None of the above. I thought your thoughts on solving the "race-based violent crime problem" would prove interesting. BTW, you don't suppose that violent crime and poverty might be linked somehow, do you? Just a thought...


You still have ignored the obvious (and have failed to address anything I've written), so corresponding with you is futile. Any thoughts I might have - on any topic - would fall on deaf ears.

I'll answer your last "thought":

1) Many groups have arrived in the United States and were mired in poverty; some still are. They did not/do not have anywhere near the record of violent crime that the African American community has.

2) Does poverty necessarily cause murder, rape, armed robbery, drug dealing, children out of wedlock, truancy, and a litany of other issues? I grew up poor in a poor neighborhood, and the vast majority of non-black people did not resort to such things.

3) Many African Americans who are not "in poverty" still have disproportionate crime rates.

4) Why is there still so much "poverty" in the African American community? Half a century and trillions of dollars of social welfare, and the problem is worse than it was during the, um, halcyon days of LBJ. Perhaps the very same things that cause the violent crime also cause the poverty?

I noticed that your town is 97% white, and less than 1% black, and I live in NYC (the diversity capital of the U.S.), yet you attempt to lecture me on "the way things are." I think you're the one who needs to do some thinking...and some empirical study.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

Prior to moving here, FYI, I lived for 20 years in the city of Chicago. You might have heard of it. At the time I moved there in the early 90's there was a murder in the city every 8 hours.

I have zero need or desire to respond further to your deaf ears. I tried to bow out a while ago politely and am leaving now.

I can only imagine what is taught in your classroom and the monsters you are working to create. Goodbye.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

wdrazek said:


> Prior to moving here, FYI, I lived for 20 years in the city of Chicago. You might have heard of it...I can only imagine what is taught in your classroom and the monsters you are working to create. Goodbye.


You sir, are an arrogant, mean-spirited, ignorant, and wretched person. Rather than admitting your politically and culturally biased stupidity was logically destroyed, you continue to launch personal attacks. I sensed this was coming; you are an intellectual zero, devoid of thought, who couldn't even muster one rational response to the avalanche of information I provided.

My students - of all races - have lavished more praise upon me than one could ever imagine; for this I am exceedingly grateful. Perhaps I'll add another lesson - stay away from despicable scoundrels like you!


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> Being "profiled," whenever it occurs, is not enjoyable regardless of one's color. Now consider how any of us would feel, it that was the way things were 'every day, all day' for all the days of our lives. /QUOTE]
> 
> I don't think it can be said any better than this.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Dont mind Hitch...he is a straight up dolt that is incapable of having a civil discussion out here. You will never convince him to reconsider his neanderthal beliefs of an America from the Jim Crow days of the past. Dont sweat it.


 See above and take care to remind yourselves of all the other posts I've made in such a disparaging manner


> The bottom line on this case for me is simple:
> 
> GZ is a flunkey who could never pass the physical or mental exams to become a "real cop" -but he took a job as a rent a cop with a chip on his shoulder.
> He followed a guy AFTER the dispatcher told him not to.
> He confronted the teenager and when he got his ass handed to him, he shot him...and claimed self defense?


 Odd the jury fails to enjoy your enlightened status, maybe it has something to do with actually hearing the evidence presented rather than making up their own.


> If a bear attacks your camp ground, you can shoot to protect your family. That is self defense.
> If you go out into the woods to find a bear cave, AFTER a park ranger warned you not to....find a cave, kick the bear and wake him up. You cannot claim self defense when the bear rips your head off. Period.


 By this time tomorrow 15-18 black men (mostly of them young) will die violent deaths in the US and you will never know their names.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> You still have ignored the obvious (and have failed to address anything I've written), so corresponding with you is futile. Any thoughts I might have - on any topic - would fall on deaf ears.
> 
> I'll answer your last "thought":
> 
> ...


The statistics reflect a very similar, albeit not as acute, situation in England. Our police force introduced a public access crime database a few years ago https://www.police.uk/ Here are the statistics for one Leeds area: and here another Both are economically deprived areas with heavy unemployment but one has 50% more crime (across the board) than the other. One area is almost exclusively populated by caucasians and the other almost exclusively by Afro-Caribbeans. .
.
.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> The statistics reflect a very similar, albeit not as acute, situation in England. Our police force introduced a public access crime database a few years ago https://www.police.uk/ Here are the statistics for one Leeds area: and here another Both are economically deprived areas with heavy unemployment but one has 50% more crime (across the board) than the other. One area is almost exclusively populated by caucasians and the other almost exclusively by Afro-Caribbeans. .
> .
> .
> .


Don't miss out the bit about rivers of blood, I always used to enjoy that.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I'll try to answer the points made by wdrazek and CuffDaddy as succinctly as possible:
> 
> 2) The data adduced has been empirically demonstrated in almost every large city, state, and on the federal level. If your argument is that the "criminal justice system" is corrupt, then what you're really saying is that there is massive collusion to discriminate against black people in every locality in all fifty states plus federally. You are taking conspiracy theories to a unfathomable realm, especially since so many local and state governments and certainly the federal government have been controlled by politically moderate-to-left adherents for _many decades_
> 
> ...





Tiger said:


> You still have ignored the obvious (and have failed to address anything I've written), so corresponding with you is futile. Any thoughts I might have - on any topic - would fall on deaf ears.
> 
> I'll answer your last "thought":
> 
> ...


2. Poverty may or may not cause these behaviors, but desperation probably does. I can assure anyone reading that poverty and the mentioned social ills are highly correlated across all races. Murder and armed robbery I am not sure of since I have no experience with people who did those sorts of crimes. I have experience in misdemeanor cases and social welfare.

3. What does that even mean?

4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the work force. Can't escape poverty if no one trusts you. The southwest hispanic population has this problem too. The only difference is that a lot of them migrated here to work and have jobs lined up even if they are impoverished. Big difference between working poor and unemployed poor. The working poor aren't as desperate.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Leighton said:


> 2. Poverty may or may not cause these behaviors, but desperation probably does. I can assure anyone reading that poverty and the mentioned social ills are highly correlated across all races. Murder and armed robbery I am not sure of since I have no experience with people who did those sorts of crimes. I have experience in misdemeanor cases and social welfare.
> 
> 3. What does that even mean?
> 
> 4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the work force. Can't escape poverty if no one trusts you. The southwest hispanic population has this problem too. The only difference is that a lot of them migrated here to work and have jobs lined up even if they are impoverished. Big difference between working poor and unemployed poor. The working poor aren't as desperate.


2) The main issue was violent crime, and I have yet to see/read an explanation as to why poverty causes this in the black community far more than in any other.

3) When controlling for income - i.e., eliminating the poverty variable - the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

4) Your response here is merely a guess, and seems to contradict decades of evidence. In addition, so many African Americans (and other groups) have proven that it is possible to succeed, regardless of race/ethnicity.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

One other point: Doesn't your common sense tell you that criminal behavior, dropping out of school, having children out of wedlock (especially the very young), absentee fathers, involvement with drugs, gang membership, and other such behaviors will lead to the destruction of the family and the larger community, and of course, poverty? The African American community is afflicted by these maladies far more than any other racial or ethnic group! 

If you don't think so, then we really have no logical common ground...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, but it really sounds like you're just saying that black people are inherently or culturally inferior to all other races....

If that's not what you're trying to say, that's how it's coming across.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, but it really sounds like you're just saying that black people are inherently or culturally inferior to all other races....
> 
> If that's not what you're trying to say, that's how it's coming across.


No that not what Tiger is saying and no that is not how it is coming across. I'll venture a guess though and say it is more likely how you woulds like it to be, you're not the first to infer that the presentation of uncomfortable facts is racist, tsk tsk.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

_4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the work force_

What are your five best personally observed examples of this discrimination?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Hitch said:


> _4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the work force_
> 
> What are your five best personally observed examples of this discrimination?


Happens all the time in housing cases.

Unless you're a minority, I don't think it's possible to understand true racism.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Hitch said:


> No that not what Tiger is saying and no that is not how it is coming across. I'll venture a guess though and say it is more likely how you woulds like it to be, you're not the first to infer that the presentation of uncomfortable facts is racist, tsk tsk.


Tsk tsk all you want. How else does the logic compute?

Black people are more likely to commit violent crime even after controlling for all other factors. Therefore....

The only conclusion is that they're a more violent culture. There's no other conclusion that follows.

I'm not saying it isn't true, but if that's what you're saying, just say it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Leighton said:


> I'm really not sure what you're trying to say, but it really sounds like you're just saying that black people are inherently or culturally inferior to all other races....If that's not what you're trying to say, that's how it's coming across.


You make it sound as if I've been cryptic, when in fact I've been very lucid (sometimes to a fault).

However, you've missed not my points, but my purpose. My goal was to expose some of the nonsense emanating from the disdainful sophists who love to tell us all how the world works - according to their own tendentious view, of course - without ever bothering to support their views with anything tangible. They create a mythical narrative, and then vilify anyone with the temerity to challenge their illogical and often plainly inaccurate theories and descriptions. I simply dismantled the nonsensical utterances, so that further examination of cause and effect on the underlying topic could progress without the encumbrance of fallacies and fairy tales.

It was not my purpose to provide causation and solution to these vexing problems we've discussed; I'll let others seek out those remedies...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tiger said:


> You make it sound as if I've been cryptic, when in fact I've been very lucid (sometimes to a fault).
> 
> However, you've missed not my points, but my purpose. My goal was to expose some of the nonsense emanating from the disdainful sophists who love to tell us all how the world works - according to their own tendentious view, of course - without ever bothering to support their views with anything tangible. They create a mythical narrative, and then vilify anyone with the temerity to challenge their illogical and often plainly inaccurate theories and descriptions. I simply dismantled the nonsensical utterances, so that further examination of cause and effect on the underlying topic could progress without the encumbrance of fallacies and fairy tales.
> 
> It was not my purpose to provide causation and solution to these vexing problems we've discussed; I'll let others seek out those remedies...


Makes perfect sense to me. I didn't read the whole page 1.5 - 3 with much attention to detail, so probably missed the explanation part.

Reducto ad absurdum.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Don't miss out the bit about rivers of blood, I always used to enjoy that.


Honestly? Or is this sarcasm? Or perhaps even an alternate motive informs this statement? I am perplexed. :confused2:


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

wdrazek said:


> BTW, I still find it interesting that POTUS is commonly thought of as 'Black' when he is actually biracial... as Zimmerman is.
> What would the American public say is POTUS' racial heritage? I would wager than most would say "African-American" although even birthers concede that it is biracial.


I won't meddle much here as I disagree vehemently with most posters. I need to correct one mistatement though: President Obama is not biracial. We are all **** sapiens sapiens with our origin traced back to Africa. The relevance of the tone of a person's skin color should be irrelevant, but trying to read through these last 4 pages makes me want to bail on AAAC. "Blacks" are no different than "whites" in any relevant biological sense, but we can make up all the bulls*it we want regarding "differences" in terms of violent status etc. Since I actually do statistical modelling for a living, other BS like "controlling for X and Y factors blacks are still more violent" is just that: "BS". How do you control for historical prejudice? Or the horrible judicial system where "blacks" are sistematically discriminated against (crack prison sentences vs cocaine, anyone?).

Put any group of people through a horrible historical discriminatory pattern and one reaction will be violence. The US is really screwed up viewed from the inside or outside. The idea that someone armed can "follow" another person, start a confrontation, kill the other person (even if in "legitimate defense) and get away scot-free is laughable. Yes, second-degree was impossible to prove, but aggravated assault, or some other legalese term should have been an option and the guy has to go to jail because the whole event unfolded because of him and his really stupid decision. If one is to have a society where people take responsibilities for their own action we cannot abide a human being starting a confrontation where he ends up shooting the other unarmed person.

I can tell you I see a LOT of palpable racism in these pages. It disgusts me. And if you think that you are different than other people by being white, you disgust me. (/end Rant)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> I won't meddle much here as I disagree vehemently with most posters. I need to correct one mistatement though: President Obama is not biracial. We are all **** sapiens sapiens with our origin traced back to Africa. The relevance of the tone of a person's skin color should be irrelevant, but trying to read through these last 4 pages makes me want to bail on AAAC. "Blacks" are no different than "whites" in any relevant biological sense, but we can make up all the bulls*it we want regarding "differences" in terms of violent status etc. Since I actually do statistical modelling for a living, other BS like "controlling for X and Y factors blacks are still more violent" is just that: "BS". How do you control for historical prejudice? Or the horrible binary system where "blacks" are sistematically discriminated against (crack prison sentences vs cocaine, anyone?).
> 
> Put any group of people through a horrible historical discriminatory pattern and one reaction will be violence. The US is really screwed up viewed from the inside or outside. The idea that someone armed can "follow" another person, start a confrontation, kill the other person (even if in "legitimate defense) and get away scot-free is laughable. Yes, second-degree was impossible to prove, but aggravated assault, or some other legalese term should have been an option and the guy has to go to jail because the whole event unfolded because of him and his really stupid decision. If one is to have a society where people take responsibilities for their own action we cannot abide a human being starting a confrontation where he ends up shooting the other unarmed person.
> 
> I can tell you I see a LOT of palpable racism in these pages. It disgusts me. And if you think that you are different than other people by being white, you disgust me. (/end Rant)


The alternate sentencing structures applied to crack and cocaine are reflective of the radically differing effects each substance imparts and thus the associated perception of social and personal danger involved.

bernoulli I absolutely do not wish to dispute with you in a hostile manner, and hopefully we can pursue this in a pleasant fashion, but there is a suggestion in your post that crack is a 'black' drug and cocaine a 'white' one, how is this any different to the broad generalisations which you are offended by?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

bernoulli said:


> I won't meddle much here as I disagree vehemently with most posters. I need to correct one mistatement though: President Obama is not biracial. We are all **** sapiens sapiens with our origin traced back to Africa. The relevance of the tone of a person's skin color should be irrelevant, but trying to read through these last 4 pages makes me want to bail on AAAC. "Blacks" are no different than "whites" in any relevant biological sense, but we can make up all the bulls*it we want regarding "differences" in terms of violent status etc. Since I actually do statistical modelling for a living, other BS like "controlling for X and Y factors blacks are still more violent" is just that: "BS". How do you control for historical prejudice? Or the horrible judicial system where "blacks" are sistematically discriminated against (crack prison sentences vs cocaine, anyone?).
> 
> Put any group of people through a horrible historical discriminatory pattern and one reaction will be violence. The US is really screwed up viewed from the inside or outside. The idea that someone armed can "follow" another person, start a confrontation, kill the other person (even if in "legitimate defense) and get away scot-free is laughable. Yes, second-degree was impossible to prove, but aggravated assault, or some other legalese term should have been an option and the guy has to go to jail because the whole event unfolded because of him and his really stupid decision. If one is to have a society where people take responsibilities for their own action we cannot abide a human being starting a confrontation where he ends up shooting the other unarmed person.
> 
> I can tell you I see a LOT of palpable racism in these pages. It disgusts me. And if you think that you are different than other people by being white, you disgust me. (/end Rant)


Pointing out that 98% of Chicago's 1st degree intentional homocide is commited in African American neighborhoods is hardly racist versus fact. We can try to dilute this fact with all types of societal issues, past and present, but the base fact remains the same.

Your idea that people should ignore threats to the community reminds me of those people that walk right past a woman being raped right on the sidewalk in the middle of rush hour...Well I guess it was none of their concern either.

Martin had been previously found with stolen property and burglar's tools. He also had a previous history of violence. Those are facts. Dilute them as you will. Who's to say he wasn't casing the neighborhood? Lack of a weapon/burglar's kit doesn't show innocent intent nor does possessing a soda and a bag of skittles Why attack someone following you if you're just walking home? I see a person acting in a suspect manner. This person fits the description of people who have commited crimes against my friends & neighbors in the community. I follow & call the police in order to assure that my neighborhood is not once again victimized. For this I am violently attacked by this person who has just spoken in a racist manner. He is slamming my head into the ground. Da*# straight I'm pulling the trigger.

Again, I see no critism of Martin's racist "cracker" comment. He attacked the "cracker" as well. This is a federal hate crime. If he used the term "****ot about a gay person before the attack, you'd probably call it justified.

You're mention of mankind's genetic background, while theoretically correct, is a bit misplaced. I myself have seen no open racism in this thread versus a discussion of the issues at hand. Many people here (including myself), have chosen to mention societal factors that come into play be it poverty, racism, biased courts, biased jurrors, etc. But I will not condone that 98% of Chicago's homocides because of such issues. "oh. I'm sorry about your horrible past & your inability to escape the criminal lifestyle, so do what you please". Nope just doesn't work for me....I might be willing to cut some slack due to these issues. I'm always willing to discuss them. I fully support any viable option to change things for the better in a manner that is equitable to all. I don't care if they're green, blue, white, black, yellow or bright pink, just because I share coding with someone doesn't mean I want a murderer, robber or rapist operating in my neighborhood. I have children, you better believe I have a vested interest in keeping my society safe fron such.


----------



## DJH_of_Doom (Apr 3, 2013)

I don't believe for a minute that Zimmerman is a racist, but I do not doubt that he is a murderer. I also don't believe that Martin's **** smells like roses.

I do not dispute that he acted lawfully according to local law, but this does not make it right. Fortunately, I do not live in a country where this is likely to happen.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

DJH_of_Doom said:


> I don't believe for a minute that Zimmerman is a racist, but I do not doubt that he is a murderer. I also don't believe that Martin's **** smells like roses.
> 
> I do not dispute that he acted lawfully according to local law, but this does not make it right. Fortunately, I do not live in a country where this is likely to happen.


Let's say for the sake of argument that Britain had a SYG law. Let's also say that Lee Rigby was packing a sidearm. Would he be dead today? In fairness, his killers are locked up today but still....


----------



## DJH_of_Doom (Apr 3, 2013)

Given the brutality and cowardice of Rigby's alleged killers, I don't believe he stood much chance. If they believed he was armed, they would have acted in an even more cowardly way when planning the attack. This was a bit different as it was polically motivated and the alleged killers were quite determined to make their points.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Shaver,

Some statistics cited in this thread are correct, like 98% of homicides in Chicago are commited by "black" people. And that crack is more prevalent in "black" communities than in "white" ones - a problem that is almost unique in segregated America, the idea of neighborhoods based on skin tone. My problem is with the inferences derived from the statistics and generalizations. It is not that the generalizations that bother me - "racial" profiling in the US works, even if ethically dubious. And I would never dispute with you in a hostile manner, I just read a lot of things in this thread that irked me. As a Swedish friend of mine commented this weekend on me and another Brazilian professor discussing economics: I love how you can show a lot of passion in your arguments, shouting and waving your arms, like a verbal joust, but in the end of the day everybody is a friend. He equates that to how the French argue. Go figure.

We do have an America that is segregated on this perceived notion of race. We have to break that up as soon as possible. Calling Obama biracial makes it worse, as the fact that a guy with a gun walks to another guy to confront him, ends up killing him and walks away scot-free. Race be damned, that is wrong on any kind of ethic level. IMHO, of course. Right now I am in a supposedly "civilized" country, Denmark, and I have one "black" student. The Danish think themselves above things like race and when I asked them if they thought Denmark was racist most answered no. When asking the "black" student the answer was an immediate: Hell, yeah! Just an anedocte to show how these things run deep.

And yes, I see a lot of rascim in this thread. Not from everybody, of course, but damn, it irkes me.



Shaver said:


> The alternate sentencing structures applied to crack and cocaine are reflective of the radically differing effects each substance imparts and thus the associated perception of social and personal danger involved.
> 
> bernoulli I absolutely do not wish to dispute with you in a hostile manner, and hopefully we can pursue this in a pleasant fashion, but there is a suggestion in your post that crack is a 'black' drug and cocaine a 'white' one, how is this any different to the broad generalisations which you are offended by?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^^^

I suppose that each man must draw his own boundary of comfort but I re-read the thread and I observe some level-headed contributions which are deliberately avoiding drawing any improper conclusions from the facts, merely stating them.

The term racism *may* refer to any attempt to identify shared characteristics of biological groups, yet this is the style of taxonomy upon which science has been so sucessfuly based.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

bernoulli said:


> Right now I am in a supposedly "civilized" country, Denmark, and I have one "black" student. The Danish think themselves above things like race and when I asked them if they thought Denmark was racist most answered no. When asking the "black" student the answer was an immediate: Hell, yeah! Just an anedocte to show how these things run deep.


Interesting. Anecdotally, Uber driver (Uber, if you don't have it where you are, is a cellphone app-based car services made up independent contractors) I have ridden with several times and subsequently become fairly good friends with is from Liberia, though he moved to Paris in his teens and earned a masters in Financial Engineering at Universite Paris. He migrated to the US to work for his brother's limo service because he was felt extremely discriminated against in France both for his skin color and because many believed he was Muslim (he is a Protestant). Apparently, he worked at convenience store for six years while waiting on his visa approval, because no one in finance would hire him. His experience in the US has been much different and for the better, so he claims. In May, I went to his house warming party in Cleveland Park, so he's doing something right.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chris Rock makes some interesting observations.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Chris Rock makes some interesting observations.


Coarse and divisive observations, but uncomfortably funny too. :tongue2:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

DJH_of_Doom said:


> Given the brutality and cowardice of Rigby's alleged killers, I don't believe he stood much chance. If they believed he was armed, they would have acted in an even more cowardly way when planning the attack.


Yeah, that's why most citizens in the US who carry do so _concealed_.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Let's say for the sake of argument that Britain had a SYG law. Let's also say that Lee Rigby was packing a sidearm. Would he be dead today? In fairness, his killers are locked up today but still....


How? He was hit with a bleeping car and then hacked to bits as he lay there incapacitated......

I have yet to see any strong evidence in favor of either concealed carry guns reducing crime, increasing crime, increasing violence, or basically doing anything other than imbuing the carrier with a false sense of security/superiority/strength.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Yeah, that's why most citizens in the US who carry do so _concealed_.


There are studies which indicate that open carrying actually increases the likelihood of escalation and no studies that refute this conclusion, right?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

That meddling Zimmerman just cannot mind his own business:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zi...g-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432

Some people never learn.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> That meddling Zimmerman just cannot mind his own business:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zi...g-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432
> 
> Some people never learn.


Although I can't take credit for this, "what if George hadn't gotten out of his truck?"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> That meddling Zimmerman just cannot mind his own business:
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zi...g-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432
> 
> Some people never learn.


Probably he provoked the SUV into rolling by harassing it. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Although I can't take credit for this, "what if George hadn't gotten out of his truck?"


If truck egress isn't a felony, I gather it sure should be.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Probably he provoked the SUV into rolling by harassing it. :icon_smile_wink:


I can't say. No doubt it is a matter that warrants investigation by the DOJ. Attorney General Holder will presumably be holding his press conference momentarily.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Probably he provoked the SUV into rolling by harassing it. :icon_smile_wink:


From transcript of newest Zimmerman's 911 call:

Zimmerman: I'm exiting my truck now to head to the car with my fire extinguisher.
911: You don't have to do that.

;-)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Further excerpt:

"Sir, can you describe the SUV? What color is it?"
"Um... I would really rather not answer that question. Long story."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> There are studies which indicate that open carrying actually increases the likelihood of escalation and no studies that refute this conclusion, right?


I have no idea one way or the other.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Thank you, gentlemen, for providing some much needed levity!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Happens all the time in housing cases.
> 
> Unless you're a minority, I don't think it's possible to understand true racism.


So you're backing away from this claim? ; _4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the  

_When asked for personally observed examples you followed the liberal playbook and changed the subject. Ok how about one example?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Tsk tsk all you want. How else does the logic compute?
> 
> Black people are more likely to commit violent crime even after controlling for all other factors. Therefore....
> 
> ...


 _, but it really sounds like you're just saying that black people are inherently or culturally inferior to all other races...._

Interesting difference 24 hours makes in your conclusions, emphasis added.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Did anyone beside my grandson and I happen to see 'Despicable Me2...a wonderfully entertaining movie? Have we any stealth Minion's of Evil among us? I think...perhaps!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Come on everybody knows Zimmerman's PR coach was the SUV driver....


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

This time, it wasn't George who was on his back.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> From transcript of newest Zimmerman's 911 call:
> 
> Zimmerman: I'm exiting my truck now to head to the car with my fire extinguisher.
> 911: You don't have to do that.
> ...





CuffDaddy said:


> Further excerpt:
> 
> "Sir, can you describe the SUV? What color is it?"
> "Um... I would really rather not answer that question. Long story."


:thumbs-up: Hilarious: I love you guys!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

The people in the flipped SUV better be glad that it was Zimmerman who showed up and not Reginald Denny... He would have stayed in his vehicle.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

drlivingston said:


> The people in the flipped SUV better be glad that it was Zimmerman who showed up and not Reginald Denny... He would have stayed in his vehicle.


The Reginald Denny attack was a horrifying event, as was the "justice" that followed. Unsurprisingly, _that _part of the story was severely underreported...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Hitch said:


> _, but it really sounds like you're just saying that black people are inherently or culturally inferior to all other races...._
> 
> Interesting difference 24 hours makes in your conclusions, emphasis added.


I didn't make any conclusions. I just said probably.

You asked for personal observations, ie anecdotal evidence. I have none. I'm not black. I don't have any personal experience with being black.

However, I am a minority and I've faced discrimination. Especially in the south. I'm never ever going back there.

How about you go and read the enormous literature about workplace discrimination against black people.

Let me google that for you.....

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=nNbuUb30CIqyiQLJ9oCwCA&ved=0CE8QgQMwAA


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

> "However, I am a minority and I've faced discrimination. Especially in the south. I'm never ever going back there."




As a southerner, I am mortified to hear this. I think my part of the country has made big strides in this area, especially in the more cosmopolitan places. Nevertheless, there's no doubt that racism remains a fact of life in America, and in the south in particular. I'm sorry you caught any portion of it.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I'm not discounting your experiences, Leighton, but I think that very often, when someone thinks they are being discriminated against, they are looking for a reason to say they are being discriminated against before it ever happened. I know A LOT of African refugees and they don't have anything close to the same perception of discrimination as black Americans do, even though their skin color would seem to indicate their experience should be the same. The few that I have asked directly don't feel that they have been discriminated against based on skin color, only on their heavy accents (trying to order delivery food was a scenario mentioned by more than one). It seems to me, from my extremely unreliable and unscientific study, that a healthy portion of perceived racism and discrimination is the product of the lens through which you view the world around you.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> I didn't make any conclusions. I just said probably.


 Thats not true you inferred racism on Tiger's part


> You asked for personal observations, ie anecdotal evidence. I have none. I'm not black. I don't have any personal experience with being black.


 I didnt ask about your race ,I asked you for five examples of racist discrimination that you had personally witnessed, especially since you brought it up,in the work place ,you have yet to describe one


> However, I am a minority and I've faced discrimination. Especially in the south. I'm never ever going back there.
> 
> How about you go and read the enormous literature about workplace discrimination against black people.


 Sure I'll read all about it ,right after you provide the examples I requested.


> Let me google that for you.....
> 
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=nNbuUb30CIqyiQLJ9oCwCA&ved=0CE8QgQMwAA


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*Dont Look*

https://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Hitch said:


> https://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/


Permission to riot?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Thats not true you inferred racism on Tiger's part I didnt ask about your race ,I asked you for five examples of racist discrimination that you had personally witnessed, especially since you brought it up,in the work place ,you have yet to describe one Sure I'll read all about it ,right after you provide the examples I requested.


Okay then you racism denialist...

1. Maricopa county attorney's office (black, hispanic, asian, native american, anything but white) (not just me, pretty much every minority attorney with experience with that office agrees)
2. Georgia (could probably fill up your "list" with this state alone)
3. Pretty much all big law who shall remain nameless (don't believe me, try and find five non-white managing partners)
4. Papa Johns
5. The AG under the current leadership

Stop denying racism. I bet you deny the holocaust too?

Just because you aren't racist or don't see it personally, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I will admit that when I lived in Portland, the only discrimination I felt was in the dating scene.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Thats not true you inferred racism on Tiger's


Well, let me see....

How the hell does the statement "Accounting for all other factors, black people perpetrate more violent crime than white people" not logically conclude that black people for some reason are more violent than white people?

Tiger can fight his own battles and admitted to making the statement to make a point about some other factor, but the fact remains, the statement has only one logical conclusion. All I did was say it out loud.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I'm not discounting your experiences, Leighton, but I think that very often, when someone thinks they are being discriminated against, they are looking for a reason to say they are being discriminated against before it ever happened. I know A LOT of African refugees and they don't have anything close to the same perception of discrimination as black Americans do, even though their skin color would seem to indicate their experience should be the same. The few that I have asked directly don't feel that they have been discriminated against based on skin color, only on their heavy accents (trying to order delivery food was a scenario mentioned by more than one). It seems to me, from my extremely unreliable and unscientific study, that a healthy portion of perceived racism and discrimination is the product of the lens through which you view the world around you.


I admit that it is possible the amount of discrimination black people actually face may be less than the perceived discrimination, but the fact remains that they face it. It exists and it's alive and well in certain parts of America. While it may be human nature, it doesn't make it right.

That said, comparing the experiences of refugees with people born in America is not even close to the same. Refugees are pretty damn grateful for even being admitted into the country. Children who are born here, not exactly.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Leighton said:


> How the hell does the statement "Accounting for all other factors, black people perpetrate more violent crime than white people" not logically conclude that black people for some reason are more violent than white people?
> Tiger can fight his own battles...


Leighton, the quote you attribute to me is inaccurate. What I actually wrote was, "When controlling for income - i.e., eliminating the poverty variable - the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate." This is far different from what you present, and imply.

I assume it was done by accident...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen, we can begin to relax now...we may have some answers to our present dilemma? Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points memo for the 22 July edition of his show cut through much of the BS, quite accurately pointing out that while the President, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Jr. and other leaders in the African American community are calling for more conversations about race relations in America, they are once again failing to even acknowledge, let alone address the real causes of or solutions for the problem/crisis. What are the disintegration of the African American family and the failure of African american males to step up and be accountable, providing positive, constructive leadership to their families? When the great comedian, Bill Cosby, offered very similar observations several years back, he was virtually excommunicated from the black community, being called "a while man's N*****!" Very sad, but very true! Bill O'Rielly is right...it's time we searched for solutions, rather than just wringing our hands over the existence of the problem


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Okay then you racism denialist...
> 
> 1. Maricopa county attorney's office (black, hispanic, asian, native american, anything but white) (not just me, pretty much every minority attorney with experience with that office agrees)
> 2. Georgia (could probably fill up your "list" with this state alone)
> ...


I, along with probably everyone else, have no idea what #1, 2, or 5 mean. When asking for specific examples, it makes no sense to just name a state. And if you're implying there was racism involved in the hiring of AG Holder, you must be unaware of the fact that in the PC world, the term for blacks discriminating against whites is called "reverse racism" but blacks hiring only blacks does not meet the criteria for such. I have little doubt that Obama felt that Holder would be a good fit for the job and, given their personal history, his skin color shouldn't matter. When any other white president appoints a white AG, it isn't racist, so how is the appointment of Holder?

Regarding your experience on the dating scene, it is laughable you call it racism when someone of another color doesn't find you attractive enough or interesting enough to date you. I'm very far from being a racist (the wonderful woman I've been with for four years is Indian), but not being a racist does not automatically mean that I'm attracted to non-whites. I have several black female friends and they swoon far more for black men than white men. People are just generally more attracted to those similar to themselves. That's not racism.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I, along with probably everyone else, have no idea what #1, 2, or 5 mean. When asking for specific examples, it makes no sense to just name a state. And if you're implying there was racism involved in the hiring of AG Holder, you must be unaware of the fact that in the PC world, the term for blacks discriminating against whites is called "reverse racism" but blacks hiring only blacks does not meet the criteria for such. I have little doubt that Obama felt that Holder would be a good fit for the job and, given their personal history, his skin color shouldn't matter. When any other white president appoints a white AG, it isn't racist, so how is the appointment of Holder?
> 
> Regarding your experience on the dating scene, it is laughable you call it racism when someone of another color doesn't find you attractive enough or interesting enough to date you. I'm very far from being a racist (the wonderful woman I've been with for four years is Indian), but not being a racist does not automatically mean that I'm attracted to non-whites. I have several black female friends and they swoon far more for black men than white men. People are just generally more attracted to those similar to themselves. That's not racism.


Some asshat asked for specific examples and I gave it to him. 1 & 5 are organizations I've had personal dealings with who have a culture of discrimination. #2 is a state rife full of discrimination that I personally experienced.

Now you're just being a dick. I never said it was racism. Just discrimination. You think I don't know that?

I also don't see how the life experiences of a single person either proves or disproves the existence of racism in America. That's like saying "you have no experience with X, therefore it doesn't exist." That argument is absurd.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Some asshat asked for* specific *examples and I gave it to him.


Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Either way, I'm certainly not denying that racism in America exists, or basing that opinion on the experiences of one individual. However, realistically speaking, America has done more to try to raise up black citizens than almost any other nation in the world. While in a perfect world, the need to do so wouldn't even exist as minority groups would always and automatically be on the same level as whites, the fact is that generally minority groups are disadvantaged in one way or another and the US has gone to great lengths in attempting to make that not the case - whether it has worked, or to what degree it has worked, aside. We could talk about the culture of motivation and success, biology, government dependence, reparation, effects of handouts on communities, etc. ad nauseum, but that's pretty much all theoretical (or BS, or ridiculous conspiracy). All I'm saying, as a conservative white male from the south, is that on the whole, whites are far less racist and discriminatory than minorities think (or want to think, as I suspect may be the case in some instances).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Okay then you racism denialist...


 Bless you're little heart.


> 1. Maricopa county attorney's office (black, hispanic, asian, native american, anything but white) (not just me, pretty much every minority attorney with experience with that office agrees)
> 2. Georgia (could probably fill up your "list" with this state alone)
> 3. Pretty much all big law who shall remain nameless (don't believe me, try and find five non-white managing partners)
> 4. Papa Johns
> ...


 see above


> Just because you aren't racist or don't see it personally, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


 Just because you failed to come up with a single personally witnessed example is no excuse for your shrillness.


> I will admit that when I lived in Portland, the only discrimination I felt was in the dating scene.


 City of Portland has this summer announced its official racist (pro black) policy, including hiring quotas.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Some asshat asked for specific examples and I gave it to him.


 You have an ongoing problem with quotes below what you posted in red my request undeerscored in black _4. Probably because they're discriminated against socially and in the 

What are your five best personally observed examples of this discrimination?_


> 1 & 5 are organizations I've had personal dealings with who have a culture of discrimination. #2 is a state rife full of discrimination that I personally experienced.
> 
> Now you're just being a dick. I never said it was racism. Just discrimination. You think I don't know that?
> 
> I also don't see how the life experiences of a single person either proves or disproves the existence of racism in America. That's like saying "you have no experience with X, therefore it doesn't exist." That argument is absurd.


 LOL perhaps that is one of the reasons no one has used that argument,save only your scare crow.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Well, let me see....
> 
> How the hell does the statement "Accounting for all other factors, black people perpetrate more violent crime than white people" not logically conclude that black people for some reason are more violent than white people?


 1. Statement of fact does not equal racism ,no matter how badly you might like it to. 2. You dont make conclusions, remember ?


> Tiger can fight his own battles and admitted to making the statement to make a point about some other factor, but the fact remains, the statement has only one logical conclusion. All I did was say it out loud.


I dont know you or Tiger , I do know misrepresentation and remember any post in a public forum is subject to examination, even yours.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Yes, it is all their own fault. The lack of family values etc etc...Of course, the great American Nation never segregates people and gives them all plenty of opportunities! The Great American Dream.!!!!..If only they would follow....</end sarcasm>

You want solutions? Ban firearms, legalize drugs, improve primary and secondary education at the expense of higher taxes, get taxes higher across the board and especially make the tax system more progressive, get institutions right, improve the political process, give proper incentives so people can make better informed decisions, atone for decades of social exclusion, and then we can talk about personal responsibility on a grand scale. </end rant>



eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen, we can begin to relax now...we may have some answers to our present dilemma? Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points memo for the 22 July edition of his show cut through much of the BS, quite accurately pointing out that while the President, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Jr. and other leaders in the African American community are calling for more conversations about race relations in America, they are once again failing to even acknowledge, let alone address the real causes of or solutions for the problem/crisis. What are the disintegration of the African American family and the failure of African american males to step up and be accountable, providing positive, constructive leadership to their families? When the great comedian, Bill Cosby, offered very similar observations several years back, he was virtually excommunicated from the black community, being called "a while man's N*****!" Very sad, but very true! Bill O'Rielly is right...it's time we searched for solutions, rather than just wringing our hands over the existence of the problem


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

bernoulli said:


> Yes, it is all their own fault. The lack of family values etc etc...Of course, the great American Nation never segregates people and gives them all plenty of opportunities! The Great American Dream.!!!!..If only they would follow....</end sarcasm>
> 
> You want solutions? Ban firearms, legalize drugs, improve primary and secondary education at the expense of higher taxes, get taxes higher across the board and especially make the tax system more progressive, get institutions right, improve the political process, give proper incentives so people can make better informed decisions, atone for decades of social exclusion, and then we can talk about personal responsibility on a grand scale. </end rant>


I don't think anyone said "it is all their own fault." Not even the infamous Bill O'Rielly! However the inescapable fact is the two parent family unit is quickly vanishing from the African American segment of the American population. The sad fact is that 73% of African American births in this country are to single mothers...read that as, 'no positive male presence/influence/contribution' to the household. Single parent families disproportionately fall below the poverty line, regardless of ethnicity. Poverty leads to the litany of problems that plague the black community. The solutions you suggest are directed at the symptoms of the problem, not it's causes! Throwing money at the symptoms and ignoring the root causes of those problems, will not lead to long term improvement. Reestablish a traditional family structure within our society and all those young African Americans will not have to turn to the gangs in their search for a sense of family. Put your 'Band-Aid' BS back in your medicine chest.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> You want solutions? Ban firearms, legalize drugs, improve primary and secondary education at the expense of higher taxes, get taxes higher across the board and especially make the tax system more progressive, get institutions right, improve the political process, give proper incentives so people can make better informed decisions, atone for decades of social exclusion, and then we can talk about personal responsibility on a grand scale. </end rant>


Every one of your "solutions" has either been tried, or is vacuous wishful thinking. Yet, as mentioned previously, the problems in the black community have increased, despite the litany of programs, legislation, affirmative action, preferential treatment in schools, et al. - at the cost of trillions.

As usual, not even an iota of an attempt to examine the self-inflicted wounds so prevalent in the black community. Again, when one doesn't have the ability to locate the problem, how can a resolution ever be reached?

I know, time for you to label me a "racist"...


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Yes, all of that has been tried. Guns are legal, as are drugs. Social exclusion never existed and never will!!! Right... Anyway, most of what I cite is at the roots of the problem, not family issues! Family issues don't exist because of "color", "race" or whatever. It is more prevalent in the "black" community because social exclusion and segregation are the norm. Get real equal opportunities and then see what happens (over a long period of time, since nothing will be solved easily).

Anyway, you may think think that solving social exclusion is a Band-Aid BS, but it is actually the only long-term solution. The idea that trillion of dollars have been efficiently spent on this is laughable. The social safety net in the US is a joke. Go read:

https://www.economist.com/news/lead...-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

This is how you deal with social problems...At least in a better way than the US...And I agree with maybe half of what the Economist says. But I can't deny that their system, flawed as it is, is way better than in the US. And no socialism to boot!

Let's get one simple point that tried to address it in the US, like affirmative action. Did it work? The evidence is yes. However, most people are still disputing it. Here is the literature.

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/i...pies of Articles from 2009/Kalev-ASR-2006.pdf



eagle2250 said:


> I don't think anyone said "it is all their own fault." Not even the infamous Bill O'Rielly! However the inescapable fact is the two parent family unit is quickly vanishing from the African American segment of the American population. The sad fact is that 73% of African American births in this country are to single mothers...read that as, 'no positive male presence/influence/contribution' to the household. Single parent families disproportionately fall below the poverty line, regardless of ethnicity. Poverty leads to the litany of problems that plague the black community. The solutions you suggest are directed at the symptoms of the problem, not it's causes! Throwing money at the symptoms and ignoring the root causes of those problems, will not lead to long term improvement. Reestablish a traditional family structure within our society and all those young African Americans will not have to turn to the gangs in their search for a sense of family. Put your 'Band-Aid' BS back in your medicine chest.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Has every inhabited continent produced at least one mighty civilisation with a wealth of impressive large-scale enduring historical architecture and sophisticated cultural artefacts?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> Family issues don't exist because of "color", "race" or whatever. It is more prevalent in the "black" community because social exclusion and segregation are the norm...


So, "social exclusion" and "segregation" - assuming they exist in whatever manner you seem to think - are what causes black people to murder at seven times the rate of white and Hispanics combined? It causes black people to violently assault white people forty times more than the inverse? It causes other types of crime as well? (And remember, the vast amount of black crime is perpetrated against other blacks!) It causes three out of four black children to be born out of wedlock? It causes many black women to have multiple such children, and black fathers to abandon them? It causes an incredibly high drop out rate from school? It causes involvement in drugs and gangs? It causes filth and squalor in black neighborhoods?

I have made these points and many others previously; they have yet to be intelligently addressed by anyone (not surprising). The reality is that the afflictions mentioned in the above paragraph destroy families, communities, and societies, and are what leads to poverty, high incarceration rates, high unemployment, and every other social malady that can be conceived. How could it be otherwise? To ignore this is to cling to social and political theories that have no basis in fact.

Many blacks receive financial benefits that at the very least should help ameliorate poverty - income, rent payment, food stamps, and affirmative action in employment and education. Yet, we have regressed. The cold, hard fact is this: In many American cities, black communities are horribly dangerous, dirty, and unapproachable. To blame "segregation" and "social exclusion" for what happens within those communities is both mindless and insidious, because rather than addressing the problems, it perpetuates them.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Has every inhabited continent produced at least one mighty civilisation with a wealth of impressive large-scale enduring historical architecture and sophisticated cultural artefacts?


I don't know enough to be certain, but I'm pretty sure Antartica has not. D/K whether present-day Australia qualifies as sufficiently "mighty."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

bernoulli said:


> Yes, all of that has been tried. Guns are legal, as are drugs. Social exclusion never existed and never will!!! ...
> ......


Please do show me where I said any of that, bernoulli. You seem to exhibit a tendency to allow your emotions to overtake your sense of reason in examining these issues. I am sorry for that, but it still doesn't excuse your trying to put words in my mouth! You underestimate the value of family in the social development of the individual, again, regardless of race. It is most generally from our families that we acquire our sense of core values. Take away that positive influence and we leave the development of such sense of core values to the lawless gang banger's so many of these young blacks turn to, in the absence of a positive father figure and a strong family to lean upon! I think you are so very wrong, sir, in your conclusions as to the importance of a solid family structure to the resolution of our present dilemma.

Regarding the Economist article, I have long been a fan of the model provided by the "Nordic States." However, given the fact that my beloved USA already spends more per student for secondary educational efforts and more per patient for medical care and we rank so far down the list in terms of the results achieved on lists comparing the performance in each category of the World's industrialized nations, I think we need to determine just what it is that we are doing so wrongly before we start throwing more money at these issues. LOL. Can I hear a big 'Huzzah' for the Vikings?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps a "what if" scenario might help clarify the genesis of the contention we seem to be wrestling with. Let's say it's dusk and you are sitting at the keyboard in your study, spending time with the Good fella's of the AAAC membership and you look out the window, across you front lawn and see an adult sized, hooded and darkly dressed figure, with his hood pulled well forward over his/her face, coming up your driveway and approaching your porch. You get up, temporarily abandoning the keyboard and go out on your porch, asking the unidentified figure what they are doing on your property. (In actuality it turned out to be a meter reader, who quickly identified himself, but what if) Rather than answering, they attack, taking you to the ground and proceeding to straddle you, pummeling you with punches, breaking your nose, splitting your lip, repeatedly knocking the back of your head against the ground and causing it to split open and bleed in three places. In a panic you scream for help from neighbors that in fact may never respond and your frantically grasp for ways with which to defend yourself. Your fingers wrap around the grip of a sidearm (that just happens to be in your side pocket?) and as you remain pinned to the ground and those punches continue to rain down upon you and you genuinely and seriously wonder if you will ever get out of this alive, would you exercise the option of using that gun? Out here in Hoosierville, from what I have been told and based on my understanding of existing statute, it would be legal to do so. Certainly, the jury in Florida decided such to be the case. 

As I said in a much earlier post in this thread, Trayvon Martin was not just a poor, innocent victim in this case. While his death may be tragic, once he gained control over his adversary, everything he did beyond that constitutes assault and battery (possibly with intent to do grievous bodily harm) and yes we all do have a right to defend ourselves!


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

My bad, it was actually the poster after you that wrote that all have been tried. I apologize. As for spending money wisely, we could not agree more. It is not about quantity, but about efficient spending. Hence my point on improving institutions. Without better institutions the US will continue to lag other countries regarding education and other social indicators.



eagle2250 said:


> Please do show me where I said any of that, bernoulli. You seem to exhibit a tendency to allow your emotions to overtake your sense of reason in examining these issues. I am sorry for that, but it still doesn't excuse your trying to put words in my mouth! You underestimate the value of family in the social development of the individual, again, regardless of race. It is most generally from our families that we acquire our sense of core values. Take away that positive influence and we leave the development of such sense of core values to the lawless gang banger's so many of these young blacks turn to, in the absence of a positive father figure and a strong family to lean upon! I think you are so very wrong, sir, in your conclusions as to the importance of a solid family structure to the resolution of our present dilemma.
> 
> Regarding the Economist article, I have long been a fan of the model provided by the "Nordic States." However, given the fact that my beloved USA already spends more per student for secondary educational efforts and more per patient for medical care and we rank so far down the list in terms of the results achieved on lists comparing the performance in each category of the World's industrialized nations, I think we need to determine just what it is that we are doing so wrongly before we start throwing more money at these issues. LOL. Can I hear a big 'Huzzah' for the Vikings?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> My bad, it was actually the poster after you that wrote that all have been tried.


Once again, I have been misquoted - starting to think this is done on purpose, in order to distort via the "straw man" technique.

What I actually wrote was, "Every one of your "solutions" has either been tried, or is vacuous wishful thinking."

The United States does have very poor institutions, primarily because of the warped ideology that animates them. In any event, emphasizing "institutions" while pretending that the personal/social/cultural/familial aspects don't matter is incredibly naive...


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps a "what if" scenario might help clarify the genesis of the contention we seem to be wrestling with. Let's say it's dusk and you are sitting at the keyboard in your study, spending time with the Good fella's of the AAAC membership and you look out the window, across you front lawn and see an adult sized, hooded and darkly dressed figure, with his hood pulled well forward over his/her face, coming up your driveway and approaching your porch. You get up, temporarily abandoning the keyboard and go out on your porch, asking the unidentified figure what they are doing on your property. (In actuality it turned out to be a meter reader, who quickly identified himself, but what if) Rather than answering, they attack, taking you to the ground and proceeding to straddle you, pummeling you with punches, breaking your nose, splitting your lip, repeatedly knocking the back of your head against the ground and causing it to split open and bleed in three places. In a panic you scream for help from neighbors that in fact may never respond and your frantically grasp for ways with which to defend yourself. Your fingers wrap around the grip of a sidearm (that just happens to be in your side pocket?) and as you remain pinned to the ground and those punches continue to rain down upon you and you genuinely and seriously wonder if you will ever get out of this alive, would you exercise the option of using that gun? Out here in Hoosierville, from what I have been told and based on my understanding of existing statute, it would be legal to do so. Certainly, the jury in Florida decided such to be the case.
> 
> As I said in a much earlier post in this thread, Trayvon Martin was not just a poor, innocent victim in this case. While his death may be tragic, once he gained control over his adversary, everything he did beyond that constitutes assault and battery (possibly with intent to do grievous bodily harm) and yes we all do have a right to defend ourselves!


Eagle, You always tell it like it is!! You say "possibly with intent to do grievous bodily harm". Didn't TM say to GZ "you are going to die tonight"? Tragedy? All deaths are tragedies, but with his physical and verbal attacks on GZ, I believe TM got what he deserved.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

blue suede shoes said:


> Eagle, You always tell it like it is!! You say "possibly with intent to do grievous bodily harm". Didn't TM say to GZ "you are going to die tonight"? Tragedy? All deaths are tragedies, but with his physical and verbal attacks on GZ, I believe TM got what he deserved.


We don't "know" what TM said. We just know what GZ said he said. While I'm convinced that the jury reached the correct decision based on the evidence, and agree that the evidence does on balance favor GZ's version of events, I do think it is important to acknowledge true uncertainties and not mix fact, fiction, and assertion.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

When I saw that Mr. Petrick had posted, I decided I could look in on the thread again with some hope that there would be at least one voice of sanity (or perhaps hilarity). I was not disappointed. Well said, Mike.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> When I saw that Mr. Petrick had posted, I decided I could look in on the thread again with some hope that there would be at least one voice of sanity (or perhaps hilarity). I was not disappointed. Well said, Mike.


Have always had tremendous respect for you, CuffDaddy, and of course for Mike Petrik as well. If you've read through my posts in this thread, and feel that I am one of the insane ones, that would be very disappointing...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not expressing any views on who is insane. And we *all *have our moments of insanity. Just agreeing vigorously with Mike's assesment of the case. I don't know what happened that night in Sanford. I think it more likely than not that Martin was the first person to cross the line to assault, and even more likely the first to cross over into battery. I think the verdict was right, and even obvious. As for the race discussion, I believe that racism - or, more importantly and prevalently, racial bias - remains in our country, but I think the Zimmerman/Martin case is an _incredibly _poor vehicle for discussing it. It just injects too much emotion, fear, resentment...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Strongly agree with what the two of you (and a host of others) have written as well on the Zimmerman/Martin case...


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

blue suede shoes said:


> All deaths are tragedies, but with his physical and verbal attacks on GZ, I believe TM got what he deserved.


Amazing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

George Zimmerman won't face civil rights charges in Trayvon Martin's death
The Justice Department announced Tuesday that George Zimmerman will not face federal criminal civil rights charges for shooting and killing teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012.

Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in Sanford, Fla. The shooting became a national flashpoint, sparking a discussion of race relations that continues to reverberate since and other incidents across the country.

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a devastating tragedy," Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. "It shook an entire community, drew the attention of millions across the nation, and sparked a painful but necessary dialogue throughout the country."

As a result of the announcement Tuesday, the federal investigation into the shooting has been closed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm really not even sure why this ever reached the level of a Federal Investigation.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm really not even sure why this ever reached the level of a Federal Investigation.


HEY!! Are you that guy I read about who just came out of a coma after 6 years??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> HEY!! Are you that guy I read about who just came out of a coma after 6 years??


Hold on! Who's the President now?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's not all...

American Liberals are making human shields of themselves to protest ISIS' invasion of Iraq!!

Wait a minute, now_* I'm*_ dreaming!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's not all...
> 
> American Liberals are making human shields of themselves to protest ISIS' invasion of Iraq!!
> 
> Wait a minute, now_* I'm*_ dreaming!!


ISIS is going to have Code Pink to deal with now.

I can't wait to see them try to disrupt an ISIS press conference.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss, and the old boss before him, and so on. Obama = LBJ? Good liberal democrat in hawk feathers. Welcome to Vietnam II.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Duvel said:


> Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss, and the old boss before him, and so on. Obama = LBJ? Good liberal democrat in hawk feathers. Welcome to Vietnam II.


LBJ; the last Democrat I would have potentially voted for.

Those were the days!!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Same here. I was much too young to vote when LBJ was president, but I was becoming just old enough to understand a little about politics. I developed a great admiration for LBJ in many ways, although I really loathed him for his handling of the Vietnam war.



WouldaShoulda said:


> LBJ; the last Democrat I would have potentially voted for.
> 
> Those were the days!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> LBJ; the last Democrat I would have potentially voted for.
> 
> Those were the days!!


It's his War On Poverty that really grabbed you, I'm guessing.:great:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

At long last, a reasonable and just conclusion to an arguably unnecessary death of one of our youth!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> It's his War On Poverty that really grabbed you, I'm guessing.:great:


I don't blame the well intended of the past.

I blame those that perpetuate the cruel failure of the here and now.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I was very much impressed with a recent speech delivered by the head of the FBI. It received a fair amount of attention. Here's a video and transcript: https://www.fbi.gov/news/videos/director-speaks-on-law-enforcement-and-race/view


----------

