This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

[Lemur]

You stepped into this dismissing "the little thug that got shot," and now you're up in arms that you've been misrepresented. Puh-leeze. This is a difficult case that has a lot of people upset; entering with a blithe, thoughtless dismissal of the guy who got killed wins you no debate points.

-edit-

Look, the reason I pushed back immediately on your "little thug" comment is the exact same reason I would have pushed back on anyone trying to smear the shooter. Personal attacks on either of these guys are pointless, and play into a false narrative. Some rightwingers want to paint this as a black thug who was asking for it (and you appeared to be parroting that line of attack); that's misleading and profoundly unhelpful. Likewise, those calling for Zimmerman's head without knowing the facts are being profoundly unhelpful.

I think in the latter half of your post, where you went into the Stand Your Ground law and the appropriate use of force, you were getting someplace interesting. But by opening the conversation repeating the "thug" talking point you did yourself a disservice.

Lastly, if the media is boiling this down to race that's their problem. They always go for the simplest possible narrative of conflict; that's their bias. But like I said, if race were central or causative to the outrage around the Martin case, there would have been a similar circus around the recent Wisconsin shooting, and there is not.

[Whacker]

You stepped into this dismissing "the little thug that got shot," and now you're up in arms that you've been misrepresented. Puh-leeze. This is a difficult case that has a lot of people upset; entering with a blithe, thoughtless dismissal of the guy who got killed wins you no debate points.

If you think your position has been misrepresented, nobody is preventing you from re-stating or clarifying your position concerning "the little thug who got shot."

Check your reading specs again. I called him a little thug because that's what he appeared to be. I further said I'm reserving judgment on whether or not the shooter was justified.

[Lemur]

I called him a little thug because that's what he appeared to be.

Whacker, if you want to posit that the person murdered was a "thug," and that's really salient, then you might want to link to some information. Opening the conversation with "the little thug" does not inspire a calm, reasoned debate, as you would realize if you gave it any thought at all.

Last I heard he got suspended, and that was the full publicly known extent of his thuggishness. Moreover, you are aware, I hope, that the "thug" line has been put forward by people just as unhelpful and thoughtless as Bobby Rush. If you're here to say, "race baiting bad," we can all agree on that. Racism bad too, okay? And drugs are bad, unless they're really good, in which case they're a bit of both.

Frankly, by singling out a buffoonish congresscritter and going straight into the "race baiters bad" line of rhetoric, this thread got off to a not-great start. There's a serious issue of the appropriate use of force, and a very disturbing case of a guy shooting another guy in public. There's a reason 75% of the public thinks there should be an investigation, even if the local prosecutor, for reasons unknown, tried to head it off.

-edit-

A little bit of detail about this odd and counter-productive attempt to smear the guy who got shot:

So why this desire to paint Martin, rather than the man who shot him, as the guilty party? Partly, of course, it’s just a reaction to his death becoming a cause célèbre on the left [..] Beyond that, though, some on the right are deeply invested in the idea that anti-black racism is no longer much of a problem in the United States, and certainly not a problem on the scale of false accusations of racism. You might call these people anti-anti-racists. They are determined to push back against any narrative that would suggest that a black man has been targeted for the color of his skin.

Riehl does us the great favor of making such views explicit. “In the past when race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton started their usual schtick over some alleged racial issue, they and the media were mostly allowed to run wild with it … But I don't have to tolerate it, now,” he writes, continuing, “[L]ast time I looked, there's a black guy in the White House. You want me to cry and feel sorry for you because America is such a racist country, or I need to explore some hidden racism deep within myself?”

Other anti-anti-racists are equally determined to deny that Martin’s blackness had anything to do with his death. When President Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Newt Gingrich reacted with the apoplexy he often shows in the face of anti-racism, saying, “Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period…. Is the president suggesting that, if it had been a white who'd been shot, that would be OK, because it wouldn't look like him?” Rick Santorum echoed, “What the president of the United States should do is try to bring people together, not use these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America.”

But if race has nothing to do with this case, then it makes no sense that Zimmerman was able to kill Martin without consequences—unless, of course, Martin did something to provoke him. If you don’t want to believe that racism is a problem in the United States, it helps to believe that Martin had it coming. Even if the only evidence is a school suspension, a tiny trace of pot, and the juvenile tweets of a kid trying to be cool.

[Greyblades]

[PanzerJaeger]

Frankly, by singling out a buffoonish congresscritter and going straight into the "race baiters bad" line of rhetoric, this thread got off to a not-great start. There's a serious issue of the appropriate use of force, and a very disturbing case of a guy shooting another guy in public. There's a reason 75% of the public thinks there should be an investigation, even if the local prosecutor, for reasons unknown, tried to head it off.

You have attributed a position to me and refuted it so many times in this thread, I might as well just respond once.

I have no position on the incident itself. Whether this was valid self defense or murder and whether or not the police handled it correctly will all come to light in due time. Plenty have jumped to conclusions, but I will not be one of them.

Likewise, I certainly could care less about what the boy was wearing or his history. It is always a tragedy when a child is killed, regardless of the circumstances.

This thread was meant to be about the way this child's death has been used by race baiters to stoke division to further their own agendas. I am sorry that you do not deem that topic worthy of discussion, and, quite frankly, it says a lot about our culture that you base that judgment on the fact that it happens so frequently.

To imply that race is just a sideshow in this case and that most people are only genuinely interested in the actions of the police is patently absurd. Absolutely, demonstrably, ridiculous. The racial dimension has driven the coverage of this case and is what propelled it into the national spotlight.

Again, I am sorry that you feel that element of story is not worth your time. I am inclined to feel the same way about your posts on 'Stand Your Ground' legislation, considering, as you highlighted, it does not even apply in this case. You are welcome to keep posting about it, though.

[Lemur]

To imply that race is just a sideshow in this case and that most people are only genuinely interested in the actions of the police is patently absurd.

Well, I can certainly see how this case could send a cold shiver of fear up a black man's spine, and the attempt to capitalize on it by politicians who want to use it to stoke racial fear is obvious. It's just not terribly interesting to me. Um, sorry?

The racial dimension has driven the coverage of this case and is what propelled it into the national spotlight.

Again, if this case, and the interest in it, is largely driven by racial animus, why did the Wisconsin case get a pass? I don't buy it. I'm interested in this case, and a bit horrified by how it was handled, and I don't give a flying gah about the racial angle. Everyone I know personally who has talked about it, likewise, has been disturbed by the use of force, not the white/black/whatever angle.

I am inclined to feel the same way about your posts on 'Stand Your Ground' legislation, considering, as you highlighted, it does not even apply in this case.

No, that is not what I posted at all. The initial dismissal of the case, as I understand it, was based on the Stand Your Ground law. So it's hard to see how it could be more relevant.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, I can certainly see how this case could send a cold shiver of fear up a black man's spine, and the attempt to capitalize on it by politicians who want to use it to stoke racial fear is obvious. It's just not terribly interesting to me. Um, sorry?

That's ok. Next time I would just appreciate it if you did not play arbiter of what is relevant and what is a distraction. I hope this thread can be used to discuss any element of the case that members are interested in.

In any event, in a case where interest is clearly focused on the actions of police, the Democrats decided to hold a hearing on... race.

The Trayvon Martin case swept through Capitol Hill on Tuesday, thrusting an uncomfortable conversation about race onto the political stage.

Democratic lawmakers hastily organized a forum that attracted scores of activists and a large, noisy crowd that couldn’t make its way inside the Rayburn hearing room. Democrats talked of racial profiling, questioned aggressive gun laws and called for justice in the case. Republicans, who have tried to avoid strong rhetoric on the case, did not attend the hearing but took a sober approach, calling Martin’s shooting death a tragedy that is rightly being investigated.

The spotlight shone on Martin’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, when they briefly spoke and vowed that their son’s death wouldn’t be forgotten.

“Of course, my heart is broken,” Fulton told reporters after the hearing. “But it breaks even more to know we have not gotten justice yet and that this man has not been arrested for shooting and killing my son.”

“We continue to fight for Trayvon,” Tracy Martin said.

In some of the strongest words uttered in the two-hour forum, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said Martin was “executed” and that his crime was “walk[ing] while black in a gated community.”

WWB in a GC. Another joke of a representative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, we just had a New Orleans police officer suspended for referring to Trayvon, at least implicitly, as a "thug."

There is zip in the way of credible information so far. The investigation results have not been released (only leaked and leaked partially). All of this is tentative at best.

It would appear (from the 2nd hand reports thus far) that the cops thought arresting Zimmerman was appropriate, whereas the prosecutor's office said don't waste the taxpayer's money as we don't have enough evidence to make a case. Both of those parties seem to have been doing what they are supposed to do -- though the prosecutor's office clearly blew the call on a political if not a legal level.

All-in-all I would rather wait for the full results to be released.


Or we can scrap the legal system entirely and just do "trial by media" -- might save time.


Oh, and Lindsey Lohan is off probation as of today -- sweet justice.

[Papewaio]

FYI this made international news. Most see it as excessive use of force by a wannabe cop.

IMDHO wannabe cops are the last people who should be given guns. And it is a pretty stupid suite of laws that instead of protecting people from people with power issues instead enshrines their rights to carry weapons, stalk fellow citizens, arrest them without due cause, assault them on spurious grounds, kill them in the scuffle and then get released without a thorough investigation into the situation. Idiots exist, rules, regulations and the laws of the land should compensate for those not empower them.

Two people have been killed by police in Sydney last week. That rate is a shock. Both the incidents automatically are investigated to make sure all due process was followed. The first death involved a taser, the second one the detective shot dead the accused. From all initial reports both incidents followed due process, but because firearms were discharged they have to be investigated.

[drone]

Again, if this case, and the interest in it, is largely driven by racial animus, why did the Wisconsin case get a pass?

Florida is in the South. I don't believe Wisconsin has a history of racial issues.

[Lemur]

Florida is in the South. I don't believe Wisconsin has a history of racial issues.

Maybe (probably) I'm being a Damn Yankee, but I always thought of Florida as more Central American than Southern. (I mean, seriously, Florida has a very different history from the states we generally think of as The Deep South.)

Oh, and Lindsey Lohan is off probation as of today -- sweet justice.

Excellent, now maybe she will respond to my 236 letters and 5,791 emails. LOVE ME LINDSEY!

[drone]

Maybe (probably) I'm being a Damn Yankee, but I always thought of Florida as more Central American than Southern. (I mean, seriously, Florida has a very different history from the states we generally think of as The Deep South.)

The stereotypical view of Florida contains 3 main demographic groups: Cuban exiles and other Hispanics, retired New Yorkers, and rednecks. The rednecks mainly occupy the northern part of the state (Pensacola to Jacksonville), not sure what the concentration is near Orlando. Southerners generally claims north Florida as theirs and wish God would pick up south Florida (and Atlanta) and dump them far away, like in New Jersey.

[Graphic]

Check your reading specs again. I called him a little thug because that's what he appeared to be. I further said I'm reserving judgment on whether or not the shooter was justified.

How exactly did he "appear to be" a thug? Because he's black and wore a hooded sweatshirt in a picture?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Most people hardly pay attention to who they are voting for with representatives. I remember trying to look it up before voting and not being able to find out diddly.

An American conservative makes a good case for why this is yet another issue which the GOP, Limbaugh, the NRO and the rest of the conservative media complex would be wise to avoid politicizing:

Republicans have no reason to intervene in this fight. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks Zimmerman should be charged with something.

Making decisions based entirely on expedient political motives is not "wise" and there are very often good reasons to get into a fight even when the majority of people happen to be against you at the moment.

The day we start criticizing politicians based on whether what they said was inexpedient or not instead of whether they were right or not is the day democracy dies.

[Husar]

The real question is why didn't Trayvon's dad give him a gun so he could've shot the scary adult man who followed him around and made him feel threatened?
People really need to give their kids more options to stand their ground against these scary pedophiles following them around.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Again, if this case, and the interest in it, is largely driven by racial animus, why did the Wisconsin case get a pass? I don't buy it. I'm interested in this case, and a bit horrified by how it was handled, and I don't give a flying gah about the racial angle. Everyone I know personally who has talked about it, likewise, has been disturbed by the use of force, not the white/black/whatever angle.

Wisconsin is a different situation. Also, people are trying to turn it into the next scandal anyway:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1381325.html

Anyways, surely you understand that what happens to bring a local case into the national spotlight depends a lot on how it's publicized, so two similar cases may end up with vastly different levels of attention. I don't think this would be a national case if it weren't for the racial angle. Would all the black politicians and celebrities care if it was a white kid who got shot by Zimmerman?

The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC, a group which pushes a variety of far-right legal agendas. ALEC has been pushing various versions of "Stand Your Ground" in all 50 states, and this case marks a real setback. What to do? Ah yes, declare that the dead person was a thug who had it coming. That will work!

You're watching to much msnbc: http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/moredistortionatmsnbc/

It is a great shame that some are using this tragedy to further their political ends. Indeed, Paul Krugman describes advancing his political goals as the “silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing.” That is as callous as it is cruel, and it is also incorrect. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law was the basis for the American Legislative Exchange Council’s model legislation, not the other way around.

CR

[Lemur]

I don't think this would be a national case if it weren't for the racial angle.

Not surprisingly, I have a different take. I think it's more like a crossover hit—if you don't mind me being flippant, Prince got started with a black audience, but his music was catchy enough to crossover into the mainstream. The Martin case has a racial angle, yes, and for some people that's the main show. However, the case is sufficiently disturbing to interest the broader population. So yes and no. Some people are primarily interested in the racial angle. I would suggest that many people who are following it (myself included) are concerned about the use of force and the puzzling behavior of the local authorities. Like Seamus said, there's a dearth of good information, and the whole thing should be filed under wait-and-see. What Seamus failed to mention, on the other hand, was that if the local prosecutors had their way, there would be no trial and no investigation. This is the aspect that creeps me out. Zimmerman, like any American, should have his day in court. The attempt to short-circuit that process is the aspect that does not pass the smell test.

You're watching to much msnbc

You know full well I don't watch any cable news, but you make an excellent point, and I was wrong. Yes, it appears that Florida's passage of Stand Your Ground in 2005 was ALEC's model, not the other way around. I regret the error.

Florida was ground zero for the NRA’s quest to enhance the Castle Doctrine. As a large and diverse swing state, it carries symbolic weight as a barometer of public opinion. But it is also a state where the gun-rights lobby is a formidable force. Gun-control activists trace this potency to Marion Hammer, a tiny, gray-haired septuagenarian who has been at the forefront of the gun-rights movement for decades. The NRA’s former president — the first female head in the organization’s history — Hammer is now a lobbyist based in Tallahassee. Gun-control proponents say she kick-started Stand Your Ground’s journey through the legislature and wielded her clout to pressure skittish lawmakers into backing the bill. “Her sway in the Florida legislature has been instrumental for the NRA,” says Brian Malte, director of legislation at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It’s why the NRA has used Florida as its laboratory.” (Hammer did not respond to an interview request from TIME.)

As planned, the law spread from there. In the seven years since Stand Your Ground became law in Florida, a wave of similar measures have swept across the U.S. According to the Legal Community Against Violence, 24 states in addition to Florida now have Stand Your Ground (or, in the gun-control lobby’s parlance, “Shoot First” or “Make My Day”) laws. In some of those states, gun-owners still have a duty to “retreat” — to avoid violent confrontation if possible — outside their homes. But in some states, like Florida, the law contains no such provision. “Florida was their testing ground,” says Malte, “and what the NRA has done is they’ve tried to nationalize Florida’s law.”

To expand the doctrine of Stand Your Ground, the NRA harnessed its connections with an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which promotes conservative public policy by affecting change in state legislatures. One of the ways ALEC does this is to draft model legislation that its members can push in their home states. According to gun-control proponents, ALEC used Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as a template in its push to broaden the Castle Doctrine nationwide.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not surprisingly, I have a different take. I think it's more like a crossover hit—if you don't mind me being flippant, Prince got started with a black audience, but his music was catchy enough to crossover into the mainstream. The Martin case has a racial angle, yes, and for some people that's the main show. However, the case is sufficiently disturbing to interest the broader population. So yes and no. Some people are primarily interested in the racial angle. I would suggest that many people who are following it (myself included) are concerned about the use of force and the puzzling behavior of the local authorities. Like Seamus said, there's a dearth of good information, and the whole thing should be filed under wait-and-see. What Seamus failed to mention, on the other hand, was that if the local prosecutors had their way, there would be no trial and no investigation. This is the aspect that creeps me out. Zimmerman, like any American, should have his day in court. The attempt to short-circuit that process is the aspect that does not pass the smell test.

It's true that the stand your ground law aspect has been a huge factor in this whole thing. But I think that without the racial angle this wouldn't be a national issue.

You know full well I don't watch any cable news, but you make an excellent point, and I was wrong.

I never pass a chance to accuse someone of watching MSNBC.

CR

[Lemur]

It's true that the stand your ground law aspect has been a huge factor in this whole thing. But I think that without the racial angle this wouldn't be a national issue.

I think that's hard to assert with confidence. I can easily imagine, for example, a white dude gunning down a white dude in public, an investigation being shut down before it begins, and there being a massive outcry. Again, I think the portion of the general population that is obsessed with race is smaller than you might expect. Kinda like the Tea Party; small but vocal, and punching above their weight.

Yeah, I saw there was an attempt to scandalize over the Wisconsin case. Note that it's going nowhere. Race-baiting is not enough to stir up the general population. You gotta have more than that for a hit, son!

[Goofball]

Yeah yeah, I'm clearly racist. From what I read the kid was a thug, multiple school suspensions and a bad track record. The shooter claims the kid punched and assaulted him, but this is all yet to be seen. I didn't say the kid deserved to be shot, going to wait and find out what comes out in court and see if I believe it first and it was true self defense. Either way, I'm definitely leaning towards his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.

I gotta agree with PJ's post for the most part, I'm utterly sick and tired of the race card being pulled all the damn time. It's got to the point where I develop this almost instinctive immediate counter-reaction and whenever a situation arises and the race card comes out, I start to believe the opposite party in the conflict.

Another reason I'm glad that I don't live in the US of A. Being suspended from school for having an empty baggy that smells of weed brands you a thug. Another victory in the war on drugs.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I went and read some of this stuff today. I don't see why you guys object to the discussion of race.

Basically, taking Zimmermans story as completely accurate, he had no excuse for shooting the kid. He was much bigger than him. And his description really sounds like he's an idiot who assumed that because martin was black he was on drugs or looking to steal something. It's perfectly legitimate to take this as an opportunity to talk about how bad that is.

[Xiahou]

I went and read some of this stuff today. I don't see why you guys object to the discussion of race.

Basically, taking Zimmerman's story as completely accurate, he had no excuse for shooting the kid. He was much bigger than him. And his description really sounds like he's an idiot who assumed that because martin was black he was on drugs or looking to steal something. It's perfectly legitimate to take this as an opportunity to talk about how bad that is.

If Zimmerman was the target of an unprovoked assault, he was within his rights in defending himself. It doesn't really matter if he was bigger than the kid or not.

However, I find it hard to believe that even if there was an assault, that it was completely unprovoked. Zimmerman had no reason I can conceive of to leave his vehicle and confront Martin. As a private citizen, carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility- not a license to play cop.

[Whacker]

Another reason I'm glad that I don't live in the US of A. Being suspended from school for having an empty baggy that smells of weed brands you a thug. Another victory in the war on drugs.

I generally don't care about drugs, or even how someone dresses. What brands an individual as a thug is acting like one. Fighting, vandalism, theft, ditching school repeatedly. Some of what's been brought forward isn't hard and fast, so I'll wait and see before I make my final decision, but it's very strongly leaning towards this kid was a thug and punk.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If Zimmerman was the target of an unprovoked assault, he was within his rights in defending himself. It doesn't really matter if he was bigger than the kid or not.

So what if he was within his legal rights?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That Congressman disgraced the chamber. Our country is going down the toilet, next thing you know citizens will be electing thugs who beat other members of Congress. The horror!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So we're just ignoring what happened to the congressman when he put the hood up?

Grandstanding or no, I thought it made the point pretty clearly.

And yes, this made international news a while ago and coverage is decidedly unfavourable to the shooter and police.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So we're just ignoring what happened to the congressman when he put the hood up?

Grandstanding or no, I thought it made the point pretty clearly.

No it didn't at all.

The stuff about the hoodies is about police stopping to check on people who are wearing them. "A black person wearing a hoodie is a criminal" or something like that. This Rush guy wasn't stopped from talking out of same anti-hoodie bias or racial profiling. Watch the video again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No it didn't at all.

The stuff about the hoodies is about police stopping to check on people who are wearing them. "A black person wearing a hoodie is a criminal" or something like that. This Rush guy wasn't stopped from talking out of same anti-hoodie bias or racial profiling. Watch the video again.

I did, hood goes up, chair demands he step down. The reason for this is that House rules require a representative to be bare headed. This is a Western cultural tradition, and a purely secular one because monks raise their cowls in Church so that their head is NOT uncovered. In fact, I would hazard that you could argue that as a hood is not a hat he did not have to remove it.

Also, you will not that he was not asked to lower the hood, but that simply by raising it he became "unrecognised", by changing his dress he became disenfranchised. Don't a lot of black men in the US shave their heads? Certainly, film and television promotes as a look for black men. Turk in Scrubs for example, a shaven headed black man who wears a hoodie.

The representative's argument was that while many black men choose wear hoodies, with the hoods up, that does not mean they are doing so for the reason a white person would assume (criminality). There is a strong bias here in European and therefore white American culture, going all the way back beyond "Robin Hood".

[Whacker]

I did, hood goes up, chair demands he step down. The reason for this is that House rules require a representative to be bare headed. This is a Western cultural tradition, and a purely secular one because monks raise their cowls in Church so that their head is NOT uncovered. In fact, I would hazard that you could argue that as a hood is not a hat he did not have to remove it.

Also, you will not that he was not asked to lower the hood, but that simply by raising it he became "unrecognised", by changing his dress he became disenfranchised. Don't a lot of black men in the US shave their heads? Certainly, film and television promotes as a look for black men. Turk in Scrubs for example, a shaven headed black man who wears a hoodie.

The representative's argument was that while many black men choose wear hoodies, with the hoods up, that does not mean they are doing so for the reason a white person would assume (criminality). There is a strong bias here in European and therefore white American culture, going all the way back beyond "Robin Hood".

That's the thing. It's already law in a lot of places in the US that you can't go with your face "concealed" or "covered". Quick article link with some references: http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/201...n_america.html I personally don't agree with these laws at all.

[rvg]

That's the thing. It's already law in a lot of places in the US that you can't go with your face "concealed" or "covered". Quick article link with some references: http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/201...n_america.html I personally don't agree with these laws at all.

This law is is clearly intended as a measure against masked criminals like thugs and klansmen. The subsection B is very straightforward about it.