This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives [Archive]

View Full Version : This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

Pages : [1] 2

PanzerJaeger

03-29-2012, 02:06

Whacker

03-29-2012, 03:06

Is this thread about idiots in the government or that little thug that got shot?

Lemur

03-29-2012, 03:24

that little thug that got shot?
This helps explain where you go (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40088_Fox_News_Commenters_React_to_Trayvon_Martin-_Good_Shot_Zimmy) on your prolonged absences from the Org.

As for Bobby Rush, he has a long history of grandstanding. He not the first, the best, nor the most embarrassing.

PanzerJaeger

03-29-2012, 05:11

Is this thread about idiots in the government or that little thug that got shot?

I don't even know. The way this kid's death has been used by the usual suspects to promote racial division in this country to serve the agendas of groups from the National Action Network all the way up to the Democratic Party is as disgusting as it was predictable. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the antagonists desperately want need this to be proof that America is a racist nation and that black people are still oppressed in order to justify their own existence. A couple of weeks ago I made a post about the race industry in this country, and this is yet another clear example that it is running at full steam despite our supposed post-racial shift.

Here in Memphis, at a rally supposedly in support of the young black man killed by a Latino, we were lectured (http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/martin-rally-spreading-hateful-message%3F-rpt-20120328) on white oppression and the need to vote for Democrats to fight it.

"If Trayvon had killed a white man, he'd be in jail right now," added Ervin.

Before police were called, many at the rally say organizers started getting off point, bringing politics, police and racism into what was supposed to be a rally for Martin.

"Memphis, Tennessee has the largest black population in the state of Tennessee, but yet it's ruled over by a white population a white minority population," ranted Ervin.

I did not think the profiteers could sink any lower than the boy's own parents who trademarked his name and image to hock merchandise, but now we've got politicians trying to cash in on the ginned up racial outrage. It's a particularly sick kind of exploitation that is all too familiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations) in the United States.

Whacker

03-29-2012, 05:30

This helps explain where you go (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40088_Fox_News_Commenters_React_to_Trayvon_Martin-_Good_Shot_Zimmy) on your prolonged absences from the Org.

As for Bobby Rush, he has a long history of grandstanding. He not the first, the best, nor the most embarrassing.

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.

PanzerJaeger

03-29-2012, 06:42

Another one of our stellar representatives...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oxs5Woss__k

gaelic cowboy

03-29-2012, 09:38

Bah I see your clowns and raise you a complete rogue apparently his biggest regret is not getting a sports stadium built.(the financial crash of course being nowhere near the list of regrets)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYTa81JdDfo

Ye americans are only in the hapenny place when it comes to gougers in the houses of Parliment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahon_Tribunal)

rory_20_uk

03-29-2012, 10:29

Sarmatian

03-29-2012, 10:35

I don't even know. The way this kid's death has been used by the usual suspects to promote racial division in this country to serve the agendas of groups from the National Action Network all the way up to the Democratic Party is as disgusting as it was predictable. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the antagonists desperately want need this to be proof that America is a racist nation and that black people are still oppressed in order to justify their own existence. A couple of weeks ago I made a post about the race industry in this country, and this is yet another clear example that it is running at full steam despite our supposed post-racial shift.

Here in Memphis, at a rally supposedly in support of the young black man killed by a Latino, we were lectured (http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/martin-rally-spreading-hateful-message%3F-rpt-20120328) on white oppression and the need to vote for Democrats to fight it.

I did not think the profiteers could sink any lower than the boy's own parents who trademarked his name and image to hock merchandise, but now we've got politicians trying to cash in on the ginned up racial outrage. It's a particularly sick kind of exploitation that is all too familiar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations) in the United States.

While I agree that attaching racial issues on anything you can think of and that it is often to the detriment of justice and common sense, the truth still is that as long as the USA had existed, there has been a systematic and organized repression of the black people (and various other minorities, usually to the lesser extent). Just because the situation is improving and the blacks today are in much better position than 30, 50 or 200 years ago it is by no means equal and one would be naive to think that centuries old repression which are still applied in certain parts of US territory and US system would be so easily forgotten.

Another point is that black population problems today are also in large part direct or indirect consequences of that centuries-old repression.

You guys should have much, much higher level of tolerance for black people.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-29-2012, 11:35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQ7T8iiNEo

How does this happen? How is this person one of just 435 people in control of the nation's purse strings? His incoherent ramblings would seem more of a fit for a milk crate on the steps of a public library than the corridors of power in the most powerful nation on earth. What was it Churchill said about democracy?

I know this isn't the first example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2gIsUCDDfI) of such antics on the House floor and it surely won't be the last, but they always make me wonder how anything gets done in Washington. I think lobbyists get a bad rap. I would rather have some kind of professional, even one with vested interests in a particular outcome, craft legislation than the person shown above.

And yet... he made the point he was trying to.

He put on a hoodie, and was immidiately told to step down because of the hood.

As far as this guy not being arrested - I have seen no evidence he was assaulted yet, and the man he shot was unarmed.

As such, he should have been arrested, questioned, and then charged and bailed. When a man dies by your hand you should be tried in a court of law, not just let off.

Graphic

03-29-2012, 12:53

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.

As said, there's no evidence wannabe Rorschach was assaulted, but even if he was, put yourself in Trayvon's shoes: what would you do if some creepy a-hole was stalking you at night while you were just out getting snacks and you feared for your life. Would punching him really be out of the question? Nevermind the fact that Trayvon looked like he weighed 120 pounds.

People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!" The fact that you even mentioned that he was suspended from school is ridiculous because it's completely irrelevant.

Even allowing for the dreadful "stand your ground" law, the chap who shot him should have been arrested on suspicion of murder. His defence on those charges would have been he was assaulted and responded appropriately. For him not even to be arrested is where the trouble arises. That he was even advised by the police not to follow the individual which he ignored hardly helped his case. He intentionally placed himself in harm's way and shot his way out of it.

I hardly keep up to date with all times unarmed suspects are shot. Perhaps there are dozens of white suspects getting executed as well. Does anyone have the numbers broken down by race?

Suspended from school is not sufficient reason to gun someone down.

~:smoking:

And yet... he made the point he was trying to.

He put on a hoodie, and was immidiately told to step down because of the hood.

As far as this guy not being arrested - I have seen no evidence he was assaulted yet, and the man he shot was unarmed.

As such, he should have been arrested, questioned, and then charged and bailed. When a man dies by your hand you should be tried in a court of law, not just let off.

This

rvg

03-29-2012, 13:32

Uh-oh. Watch out, here come the crazies...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justice/florida-teen-shooting-bounty/index.html?iref=obinsite

Lemur

03-29-2012, 13:48

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 [...] his character was less than stellar and that he was a little thug.
This is a kind of strange perspective to take, especially given that video of the shooter (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-shooter-george-zimmerman-appears-uninjured-police-video-night-shooting-article-1.1052433) taken a short time after this supposed assault shows the shooter completely unmarked. Nothing on his face, not limping, no marks, no grass stains, nothing. Surely if he were assaulted so fiercely that lethal force was appropriate, he would show some indication of having been in a fight, yes?

Besides which, the creepy thing is not the racial angle, but the legal one. The notion that I can shoot an unarmed person dead on a public street and not even get taken into custody? Please tell me how that is not insane. At the absolute minimum the police should have taken the shooter, relieved him of his weapon, and interviewed everyone within a hundred yards to get the clearest picture of what happened. None of that occurred. To fall back behind, "Well, the kid was a thug," is thoughtless, mindless.

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.
As you are clearly demonstrating. Think about the implications of this over-broad, over-reaching "Stand Your Ground" law. It's not good. Try to stop reflexively reacting to the racial angle.

People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!"
There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council), 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!

gaelic cowboy

03-29-2012, 14:41

All I can think of as I read not just this the op and watch telly or read a newspaper is exactly what the hell is America so bloody afraid of.

Seriously laws like Stand Your Ground can only develop in a society that is litterally terrified to go outside. It's telling this was a gated community and involved a man described as "mild mannered but fixated on crime".

Regardless if the lad was a commie space nazi junkie terrorist he had every right to be inside that gated community.

Stand Your Ground laws are about protection there defintely not about stalking people like Batman in some Mad Max world.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 14:48

Well, there is a legitimate question about whether the Stand Your Ground law even applies to this situation, although that is the pony the local PD and prosecutor hitched themselves to in justifying why they did not take the shooter into custody or confiscate his weapon. The primary sponsor of the Florida law writes (http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=34606&content=68726482&pageNum=-1):

[T]he transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.
-edit-

Also note that grandstanding idiot Bobby Rush appears to be reacting to grandstanding idiot Geraldo Rivera, who was claiming on national TV that hoodies were "as responsible for Martin's death" as the shooter. So we appear to have a case of idiots yelling at idiots over an idiotic point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTMyb15bfAE

Strike For The South

03-29-2012, 15:39

Wether or not the man is a racist is irrelvant, you can't really prove that.

What you can prove is he left his car and began following a man and asking him questions.

This does not justify force.

When its all said and done he will probably plea out.

gaelic cowboy

03-29-2012, 16:23

US police had 'sought to arrest Trayvon Martin killer' - report (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0329/us-police-sought-to-arrest-trayvon-martin-killer.html)

Updated: 07:43, Thursday, 29 March 2012 RTE News

Police in Florida initially sought an arrest warrant for the neighbourhood watch guard who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, but were overruled by prosecutors, according to media reports.

The Miami Herald said police in Sanford, Florida applied for the arrest warrant in the early stages of the investigation, contrary to suggestions that there had been inadequate probable cause for a prosecution.

The daily cited a police incident report that described the shooting of the 17-year-old by neighbourhood watch captain George Zimmerman as "homicide/negligent manslaughter."

Prosecutors however, held off approving the warrant, pending further review, according to the Herald and other media reports.

Mr Martin, a high school student, was fatally shot on February 26 by Mr Zimmerman, a white Hispanic who said he acted in self-defense.

A surveillance video meanwhile released late Wednesday by ABC News showed Zimmerman handcuffed at a police station after the shooting, but showing no apparent signs of serious injury.

Mr Zimmerman had said Mr Martin punched him in the nose, knocked him down and slammed his head into the ground before he had pulled the trigger of his gun.

The case has unleashed a national uproar and reopened old wounds over race relations in the United States.

A controversial Florida law allows the use of deadly force when a person has a reasonable fear of death or serious injury - which Mr Zimmerman, through surrogates interviewed in the media, has said was the case when he shot Trayvon.

Since the teen's death, there have been numerous large public protests calling for Mr Zimmerman's arrest, but the 28-year-old has not been detained, prompting outrage from rights groups which describe the shooting as a case of racial profiling and decry what they allege are racial inequalities in the US criminal justice system.

Special prosecutor Angela Corey told the Miami Herald that police filed a "capias request" to the state attorney, a recommendation that criminal charges be made.

"But obviously something gave investigators pause," an anonymous source in the state attorney's office told the newspaper.

"We get capias warrants all the time. That doesn't mean we file charges right away. We investigate to see if it's appropriate," the source added.

Chris Serino, the lead detective on the case, meanwhile told ABC News on Tuesday that he filed an affidavit on the night of the shooting stating that he was unconvinced about Zimmerman's version of events.

Serino separately told MSNBC that he was not at liberty to discuss the case, but felt encouraged by the new investigation into the shooting, and he was "looking forward to the truth coming out."

Mr Martin's mother, however, told CNN that she thought authorities were properly probing the circumstances of the shooting.

"I feel confident that they are going to do a thorough investigation," Sybrina Fulton told the US broadcaster.

"We're trying to be patient, even though it's been over a month. We're still trying to be patient and still trying to press on for justice."

Looks like it the fault of the ruddy lawyers when reading this take on it.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 16:58

Furthermore, I'm kinda bemused by PJ's and Whacker's surprise and outrage that race baiters are picking such a low-hanging fruit. (Not to mention PJ's spurious comparison to the fabricated Tawana Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations) case.) Of course the peddlers of black victimhood will come out of the woodwork. Of course they will overstate their case and make ridiculous claims. It's as silly and divisive as the never-ending rightwing fixation on the Black Panthers at the voting site (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/04/black-panther-intimidation-at-the-polls/), a minor incident that still gets played for applause (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/the-new-black-panther-party-evidence-on-voter-intimidation/) three years later. (Note that black Americans do not have a monopoly on playing the racial outrage card (http://www.reddit.com/r/WhiteRights).)

But does any of this invalidate the creepiness and weirdness of this case? Nope. You two seem to believe that if idiots take up a cause, the cause is automatically spurious and invalid.

Anyway. The race stuff is a distraction. The issue that needs to be addressed is the appropriate use of force. Note the complete lack of national outrage over a similar case in Wisconsin (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-idUSBRE82Q02620120327). The difference? Our shooter was in his own home, and had no idea why someone was crouched in his enclosed porch. Did he instigate it? Nope. Did he seek a confrontation? Nope. Did he have grounds to be afraid for his personal safety and property? Yep. So no outrage. Sure, there's talk about re-examining the Castle Doctrine, but there has not been the same racially-tinged shouting and madness over our incident that there is with the Florida case.

Seriously, armed man seeks out confrontation with unarmed man and kills him in public. And nobody gets arrested. It doesn't pass the smell test.

-edit-

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 (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/29/count-me-out-on-trayvon-martin):

Republicans have no reason to intervene in this fight. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks Zimmerman should be charged with something. Second-degree manslaughter certainly sounds pretty good to me. This wouldn't be "scapegoating," as conservative talk show hosts are already nattering, it's just common sense. Zimmerman wouldn't be guilty of anything until tried by a jury, but it's better than being tried in the newspapers. In any case, the idea you can gun somebody down in the middle of the street and just walk away doesn't appeal to me and probably not to the vast majority, either. [...]

[W]hy do Republicans have to get involved in this mess? Wouldn't it be better to utter a few words of regret and move on to something more political? But no, good old Newt can't miss the chance to alienate three-quarters of the American population. What sets him off is President Obama's comment, "If I had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin." What's wrong with that? When President Obama went to Israel he said, "If somebody shot rockets at my house where my two daughters were sleeping at night, I'd do everything in my power to stop them." Was that introducing sex and religion into international relations? No, he was just empathizing. That's what Presidents are supposed to do.

But old Newt can't let that pass. Like a big, lazy trout he jumps for the bait. Obama's comment is "disgraceful" and "appalling," "trying to turn this into a racial issue." Good old Rick Santorum isn't far behind, accusing Obama of "introducing divisive rhetoric." So all of a sudden, it's Obama versus the Republicans with three-quarters of the population on Obama's side.

Ironside

03-29-2012, 18:21

There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council), 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!

It certainly will... (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense)

You can totally hear "Chasing down the thug and delivering swift, hard justice" in the name of this law.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 18:24

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case (even if killing a man over a car stereo seems excessive and unwarranted).

rvg

03-29-2012, 18:26

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case, even if killing a man over a car stereo is a bit of a stretch.

And they're both Hispanic. No racial controversy. No hoodie-wearing congressmen.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 18:29

Strike For The South

03-29-2012, 18:31

race isnt the biggest reason to be up in arms over the police bungeling of this case

Of course I'm sure they have some sympathy. Overweight white guy with a gun, seeing demons everywhere, itching to pull the trigger.

Describes the majority of cops

rvg

03-29-2012, 18:33

rvg, in the recent Wisconsin case, the shooter was white and the unarmed person doing the dying was black. No media firestorm, no controversy. This confirms my suspicion that the vast majority of people who are disturbed by this case (myself included) are not particularly interested in the racial angle.

True, but in Wisconsin case the guy who got shot was on the other guy's property, no? I don't know if being under someone's porch qualifies as home invasion, but it certainly feels like it should. And people tend to be very understanding when it comes to shooting a potential home invader. As the Petit case showed, it's better not to take chances and shoot first and shoot to kill.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 18:36

True, but in Wisconsin case the guy who got shot was on the other guy's property, no?
Yes, but it was still a case of a white civilian shooting an unarmed black civilian. If the Martin case were an example of hysterical race-baiting and nothing more, as both PJ and Whacker seem to be arguing, there would be some sort of similar circus around it. And yet there is not. To my mind, this destroys their argument. The Martin case is disturbing for many reasons, and race is at most a sideshow.

rvg

03-29-2012, 18:38

Yes, but it was still a case of a white civilian shooting an unarmed black civilian. If the Martin case were an example of hysterical race-baiting and nothing more, as both PJ and Whacker seem to be arguing, there would be some sort of similar circus around it. And yet there is not. To my mind, this destroys their argument. The Martin case is disturbing for many reasons, and race is at most a sideshow.

Ahh, I see. No, I think there's more to it than race baiting.

Ironside

03-29-2012, 18:48

Ironside, at least in that case the killer was arrested and went before a judge. Many factors better than the other case (even if killing a man over a car stereo seems excessive and unwarranted).

True, but it's the same state. And if I got correct info from another forum, that Stand Your Ground law gives arrest immunity until proven wrong. Ergo, if it's used and the prosecutor goes "don't bother, since we can't get a conviction", then it's quite possible that it's not abysmal police work (only poor) and only an abysmal law.

Whacker

03-29-2012, 19:41

Now I remember why I don't come back here that often. Serious reading comprehension issues.

Did I say the kid deserved to be shot? Bonus points for correct answer.

Did I say race was the only or main issue at hand? More bonus points for correct answer.

Did I say anything about the shooter being arrested or not? Wow! Amazing!

What I said was from what I read the kid was a thug, nothing more and nothing less. I said I'm sick and tired of the damn race card getting pulled constantly, this is a perfect example. Those of you who think race isn't the major issue here aren't paying much attention to the news, because that's what's plastered all over the major news sites and on the TV. Race race race. Do I agree that race is the core of the problem or even an issue? No, not at all, hence my disgust.

I'm completely undecided on whether or not lethal force was appropriate in this situation, hence why I will wait and see what comes out of the eventual trial.

To the "stand your ground" discussion. I am 100% in favor of being able to defend oneself with lethal force if the situation warrants. Specific to what happened, I have a few thoughts. First, I don't think the shooter was very smart to go out and confront the kid in person. Second, on the other hand, it's a well established fact that police response time can be way too late if at all, so I can at least sympathize in a way with a person's desire to keep their home, family, and neighborhood safe. This is the whole point of neighborhood watches. Third, I can't find any fault with a stranger simply asking questions of another stranger to the effect of "who are you and what are you doing here?" There is nothing inherently aggressive or dangerous with simply asking questions. If one aggressively confronts another person, that's a different story. I have no idea how the confrontation in question played out, hence why I said I will reserve judgment until the trail produces some results. But simply going out and asking someone questions on it's own is not inherently aggressive nor indicating a desire for physical conflict, ie. "asking for it". Lastly, I'm undecided on what constitutes an appropriate situation for use of deadly force for self defense, and don't think there's an easy answer.

Lemur

03-29-2012, 19:46

What I said was from what I read the kid was a thug, nothing more and nothing less.
Your actual quote was "the little thug that got shot." And now you're shocked and disgusted that anyone might give you any pushback on that. Sir, step away from the internets.

I have no idea how the confrontation in question played out, hence why I said I will reserve judgment until the trail produces some results.
Initially it did not look like there was even going to be a trial, hence the widespread shock.

Whacker

03-29-2012, 19:48

Your actual quote was "the little thug that got shot." And now you're shocked and disgusted that anyone might give you any pushback on that. Sir, step away from the internets.

No, I'm disgusted when people don't read all of what I say, or give responses which indicate that they either didn't read all of what I said or seem to willfully ignore some of it. Kinda hard to debate like that, eh?

Lemur

03-29-2012, 19:51

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

03-29-2012, 20:11

Lemur

03-29-2012, 20:23

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 (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40126_Breitbart.com_Commenters_Spew_Racist_Hatred_at_Trayvon_Martin) 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 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/26/why-conservatives-are-smearing-trayvon-martin-s-reputation.html):

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

03-29-2012, 21:30

:pop2:

PanzerJaeger

03-29-2012, 21:42

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/under-suspicion-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin/2011/03/04/gIQAz4F4KS_blog.html) absurd (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406257/race-plays-confusing-role-in-trayvon-martin-case/). Absolutely (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/29/hoodies-trayvon-martin-and-america-s-racial-fears.html), demonstrably (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-national-conversation-race-justice/story?id=16025761), ridiculous (http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/sneak-peek-what-to-expect-from-soledad-obriens-town-hall-special-beyond-trayvon-race-and-justice-in-america-airing-friday-march/). 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

03-29-2012, 22:10

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/under-suspicion-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin/2011/03/04/gIQAz4F4KS_blog.html) absurd (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57406257/race-plays-confusing-role-in-trayvon-martin-case/).
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

03-29-2012, 22:27

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 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74561.html#ixzz1qXfKZa88).

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEO6H7qC_V0

Seamus Fermanagh

03-29-2012, 22:30

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

03-29-2012, 22:30

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

03-29-2012, 22:36

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

03-29-2012, 23:19

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

03-30-2012, 03:19

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

03-30-2012, 06:03

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

03-30-2012, 06:21

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.

:freak:

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

03-30-2012, 09:12

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

03-30-2012, 14:14

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/2012/03/26/bo-morrison-killing-like-trayvon-martin_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

03-30-2012, 14:18

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 (http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/28/beyond-trayvon-how-stand-your-ground-laws-spread-from-florida-to-half-the-u-s/), 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

03-30-2012, 14:59

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

03-30-2012, 15:03

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

03-30-2012, 16:38

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2012, 19:27

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

03-31-2012, 02:30

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

03-31-2012, 02:48

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

03-31-2012, 03:58

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

03-31-2012, 05:51

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. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Southern_Chivalry.jpg) The horror!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-31-2012, 12:57

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

03-31-2012, 16:24

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

03-31-2012, 16:37

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

03-31-2012, 16:44

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/blog1/2011/04/banning_face_covering_will_never_happen_in_america.html I personally don't agree with these laws at all.

rvg

03-31-2012, 16:54

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/blog1/2011/04/banning_face_covering_will_never_happen_in_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.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-31-2012, 16:56

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/blog1/2011/04/banning_face_covering_will_never_happen_in_america.html I personally don't agree with these laws at all.

In this case though, his face was not covered, though he did put some shades on that doesn't appear to have been objected to.

Lemur

03-31-2012, 16:59

Meh, the US Congress has a dress code and he violated it. Then he got ejected. It was a silly but relatively straightforward act of civil disobedience. Although, interestingly, it seems that most of the time Congress is pretty lax about enforcing the dress code, so perhaps (probably) Rush was ejected mostly because he was irritating.

There's now a motion to consistently enforce dress code in Congress (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74634.html). Yeah, works for me. Lord knows they follow very few of the rules they make for us; they might as well follow the few they have for themselves.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-31-2012, 17:11

Yes you need to watch it again. He's obviously starting into some whole dramatic act with changing clothes and sunglasses and making a wacky speech. Has nothing to do with some bias against hoodies.

Greyblades

03-31-2012, 20:27

but it's very strongly leaning towards this kid was a thug and punk.

So he's an indian fan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee) of The Clash? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_clash)

Centurion1

03-31-2012, 22:01

the kid was a thug get the hell over it.

can we stop calling this guy white he wasnt freaking "white"

Its funny how mixed minorities love to ignore whatever white is in them. Barrack Obama is black....

So hey this guy isnt Hispanic hes white since it makes this an awesome more racially charged crime.

This country is a joke

Xiahou

03-31-2012, 23:25

So what if he was within his legal rights?Then this whole controversy would be over nothing?? I don't get it... is this some kind of riddle?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-31-2012, 23:41

Yes you need to watch it again. He's obviously starting into some whole dramatic act with changing clothes and sunglasses and making a wacky speech. Has nothing to do with some bias against hoodies.

Yes, some big dramatic speech about "hoodies not being hoodlums" and he was stopped once he raised his hood. Like I said, he was grandstanding but he either did the act to make a point or made one via some form of political idiot-genius.

the kid was a thug get the hell over it.

can we stop calling this guy white he wasnt freaking "white"

Its funny how mixed minorities love to ignore whatever white is in them. Barrack Obama is black....

So hey this guy isnt Hispanic hes white since it makes this an awesome more racially charged crime.

This country is a joke

You're milage may vary.

Antonio Banderas, Hispanic or white?

Hispanic, right?

Well, he's from Spain and we Europeans considered Spaniards white.

So.... your milage WILL vary.

rvg

03-31-2012, 23:51

Antonio Banderas, Hispanic or white?

Yes. He is White and Hispanic. Hispanics can quite obviously be of any race. Banderas being a Spaniard is White. In the New World though, a sizable number of Hispanics are not White. Amongst Mexicans especially, many of them look like they came straight off some Mayan frescoes, and that's what they mostly are: Maya and Aztecs. Not White.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-01-2012, 00:04

Then this whole controversy would be over nothing?? I don't get it... is this some kind of riddle?

I mean, he kind of murdered someone. That's what the controversy is about. The legal discussion is secondary.

Nevermind...I was fooled by the pictures they showed. But latest I read they were about the same size.

Yes, some big dramatic speech about "hoodies not being hoodlums" and he was stopped once he raised his hood.

Incidental. No deeper meaning :shrug:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2012, 00:21

Yes. He is White and Hispanic. Hispanics can quite obviously be of any race. Banderas being a Spaniard is White. In the New World though, a sizable number of Hispanics are not White. Amongst Mexicans especially, many of them look like they came straight off some Mayan frescoes, and that's what they mostly are: Maya and Aztecs. Not White.

Maybe he's just white?

"Hispanic" is a meaningless term here, we have "Spanish" and "Portugese", Antonio Banderas is not "Hispanic", he's spanish.

My point is, saying the shooter is "not white" is a non starter, you need to demonstrate he isn't "white" and that he's actually an Aztec is disguise.

I mean, he kind of murdered someone. That's what the controversy is about. The legal discussion is secondary.

Incidental. No deeper meaning :shrug:

I dunno, he sounds like a doddery old man but I'm assuming if he's that socially..odd he must have redeeming qualities to keep getting elected. Cunning is a common one. Even if he didn't make the point deliberately, it's still there.

EDIT: White also isn't really a "race", is it?

Centurion1

04-01-2012, 02:09

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2012, 02:33

http://themostrequested.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/George-Zimmerman.jpg

Oh yeah when I look at that guy the first thing I think is this dude is as Caucasian as they get. He's not. He's Peruvian.

It is completely irrelevant what Europeans believe. This is an American case and what Europeans see as race is 100% irrelevant in it. I'm just sick of everything being blamed on the white guy for every little problem by people like Spike Lee and the Black Panthers to the extent where this dude is now being called white where if he walked into the hood and said the n word no one would blink.

No way to tell. He'd pass for Italian or possibly Catalan or Cypriot.

He isn't Black, and if you think he is your white-o-meter is far too sensative, I would probably fail, but then you've probably never seen a Sami.

Actually, saying that.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people

Hax

04-01-2012, 09:34

For that matter, Arabs are white too. So are Iranians (but the latter actually makes a lot of sense)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2012, 14:43

For that matter, Arabs are white too. So are Iranians (but the latter actually makes a lot of sense)

"Arab" and "Iranian" are both very broad terms, as is "Turk". Ethnic Turks are not white, they are Asian, but many modern Turks are actually Mediteranian, likewise ethnic Persians and Medes are "white" where Asiatic Iranians are not. "Arab" is brobably the broadest cultural-ethnic terms there is other than "African American", but obviously Semetic Arabs are white, because Semetic Jews are considered white.

Oh, hey, some Afgans are white too, the Pashtuns are supposedly Jews who got dumped there by the Babylonians during the Exile.

The point being, this guy is NOT Black, certainly the mother of the boy who was shot doesn't think he was Black.

Lemur

04-01-2012, 18:26

the kid was a thug get the hell over it.
I think you are conflating a few different things in this post, and sending out a muddled message because of it. First of all, there is very little evidence that Martin was a "thug." Did he have a juvee or criminal record? No. Did he have any known gang affiliation? No. Any firsthand accounts of violence, crime, theft, arson, anything? Nope. So what's your basis for calling him a thug?

can we stop calling this guy white he wasnt freaking "white"
The only people for whom the shooter's race is of paramount importance are the racists (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40126_Breitbart.com_Commenters_Spew_Racist_Hatred_at_Trayvon_Martin) and the race-baiters (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-black-panthers-offering-bounty-on-trayvon-killer-george-zimmerman/). Of which we have (in my opinion) a small number of each, making a great deal of noise. (And it can be very hard to tell the two groups apart.)

this an awesome more racially charged crime.

This country is a joke
Nah, this country is pretty darn great. Look, in this case race can matter exactly as much as you want it to. But I think the urge to discredit and blame Martin for his own shooting, as expressed by you and Whacker in this thread, is misguided, and comes from a sense that liberals and blacks such as Al Sharpton are trying to milk this incident for their own purposes. (Which undoubtedly they are.) So to defuse it, and redirect your anger, you reach for calling Martin a "thug," based on slim to zero evidence.

I get what you're doing, but I think it is misguided. Martin's shooting can be a horrible tragedy and a softball for race-baiters. One does not exclude the other. The "stand your ground" laws can be a horrible perversion of justice and Bobby Rush can be a grandstanding idiot. One does not cancel out the other.

Think about the standard for lethal violence written into Florida's law: you merely need to "feel" threatened to use deadly force. Contrast that with the standard for violence, in, say, the Old West, where you typically had to demonstrate that they other feller touched his gun first. We're more lax than that, which is kinda head-snapping if you think about it.

Don't let racist idiots and/or race-baiting trolls derail you from the serious issues at stake here.

-edit-

A side-note: We've had three years of gun ownership and 2nd A groups screaming that Obama was going to take our guns away. Even though not a single legislative or administrative move has been made, they're still going on about it. And all the while, concealed-carry permits have been getting okayed in state after state, the castle doctrine has been expanded in almost every state, and something like 26 states have passed "stand your ground" laws with the support of ALEC and the NRA. It certainly seems that the more the NRA gets exactly what it wants, the harder it screams and cries to its membership. I wonder if there is any end-game or final state that would actually satisfy them. You want to talk about special-interest groups that scream "victim" constantly with little to no basis in fact or reality?

Whacker

04-01-2012, 18:53

But I think the urge to discredit and blame Martin for his own shooting, as expressed by you and Whacker in this thread

You need a reality check again. I said this kid is most likely a thug, given his track record, as the evidence is strongly leaning that way. Multiple suspensions, from vandalism to swinging at a bus driver, and a very nice public presence with some pretty nasty statements. Both sides have produced "evidence", both sides are decrying, denouncing, or dismissing the other's. You've mentioned this a few times, as this is apparently "just another kid trying to be cool" or pretty much dismissing this as irrelevant or not a good judge of character. Sorry, don't agree whatsoever.

You need to re-read what I've said several times in this thread. I'll repeat it here for your benefit. I said the kid's probably a thug. I said I'm going to wait before I make the final judgment, but that's how I'm strongly leaning now. I said the kid didn't DESERVE to be shot, very few people in this world do. I said I'm going to wait until the trial's over before I decide if I think he earned his dirt nap. Big differences. But I do appreciate your awful attempts to put that spin on what I say, makes me feel special.

Centurion1

04-01-2012, 19:40

I didn't say he deserved to be shot and I don't know why you always insist on doing this to people like whacker and I. I said he was a thug.

No record for theft? He was found with womens jewelry in his backpack.

He was a thug. I sincerely doubt he weighed 150 pounds or whatever they said since he was around 6'3'' and I just want this to go to trial so I can hear some actual facts instead of anyone who disagrees being labeled a racist animal and a fool.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-01-2012, 22:39

Is it really if they "feel" threatened? I thought it was something like "reasonably believes" and only under certain circumstances...

Lemur

04-01-2012, 23:18

Is it really if they "feel" threatened? I thought it was something like "reasonably believes" and only under certain circumstances...
Actual statute (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/florida%E2%80%99s-self-defense-laws):

Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or[...]So you must have a reasonable expectation that you will face death or bodily harm. But it's all contingent on your "belief," which is a bit of a lawyer's paradise. And note the "forcible felony" clause, which covers a lot of turf, given how broadly a felony is defined in some jurisdictions.

Nothing in that statute leads me to believe the local prosecutor acted in accordance with the text or spirit of the law, but as others have pointed out, we the public are functioning with incomplete information. It's reasonable to want an investigation and, if appropriate, a trial.

Whacker, Centurion, what can I say? The main thing both of you bothered to say was that Martin was a thug, neither of you could be bothered to link to a primary or even secondary source; you expect everyone to accept your "thug" evaluation at face value. You have nothing to say, apparently, about the law, the circumstances, the shooter, the police or the prosecutor. The sole object of your scorn is the guy who did the dying. And you're shocked, shocked that anyone could interpret that as anything but a cool, logical evaluation of the case. How dare they? The cheek! The nerve!

If your overall point is "we don't know" and "don't rush to judgment," that's great. But you undermine yourselves by jumping on the Thug Train, and having that be the most conspicuous point you make. You want to have a more serious conversation? By all means. Let's.

Whacker

04-02-2012, 01:02

Whacker, Centurion, what can I say? The main thing both of you bothered to say was that Martin was a thug, neither of you could be bothered to link to a primary or even secondary source; you expect everyone to accept your "thug" evaluation at face value.

The fact that he's been suspended three times is well known. The BS he spouted on his Twatter account is also well known. Hell even one of your (horrible) op-ed pieces referenced this, the one that indicated I'm clearly a racist for not seeing this as representative of race issues in the US.

You have nothing to say, apparently, about the law, the circumstances, the shooter, the police or the prosecutor.

Because I don't have any opinion on those yet? Because I haven't read anything that I think is "solid" that gives me enough of an impression to have an opinion? Shocking, isn't it.

The sole object of your scorn is the guy who did the dying. And you're shocked, shocked that anyone could interpret that as anything but a cool, logical evaluation of the case. How dare they? The cheek! The nerve!

Can't help it others, like you, willfully ignore parts of what I've said or willfully misrepresent and "spin" other things. This all works both ways. You have your panties in a huge wad that I've supposedly "condemned" the alleged victim already, I've stated multiple times I'm undecided on that. I find it equally annoying that you as well as many others have already indicated he is a "victim" in the overall situation, because that has yet to be established. If it turns out that he instigated the fight and gave Zimmerman cause to use lethal force, then victim he ain't.

Lemur

04-02-2012, 01:06

Because I don't have any opinion on those yet? Because I haven't read anything that I think is "solid" that gives me enough of an impression to have an opinion?
So all of the ink spilled about Zimmerman, the local police and the prosecutor add up to "dunno." That's entirely fair. But based on what little you know about Martin, you're prepared to fight and die on the hill of "thug." This doesn't strike you as a bit strange?

Whacker

04-02-2012, 01:21

So all of the ink spilled about Zimmerman, the local police and the prosecutor add up to "dunno." That's entirely fair. But based on what little you know about Martin, you're prepared to fight and die on the hill of "thug." This doesn't strike you as a bit strange?

Bull. I don't have an opinion on those aspects yet, and I will not until I've read enough that *I* feel is good enough to form one. Certainly the last thing I'm going to do is magically come up with one because you think I should, that's patently ridiculous.

Lemur

04-02-2012, 01:43

I don't have an opinion on those aspects yet, and I will not until I've read enough that *I* feel is good enough to form one.
But your unsourced, unattributed whomever (I'm guessing some combination of WND and Daily Caller) are enough to convince you that Martin was a "little thug," and that's the one thing you're solid on. And you're willing to assert it without evidence, stand firm on it, and take it as the one gospel truth of a very confusing case.

Even though the websites pushing this narrative (such as Daily Caller) have been walking it back (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/new-details-darken-outlook-for-zimmermans-claims-of-self-defense/) for well over two days. This is the part of the case that seems solid and inarguable to you. And I'm being mean and unfair for pointing this out. I'm being a misrepresenting naughty person for saying, "Hey, chill the **** out on calling the guy who got shot names." But on every other aspect of this case, it's wait-and-see. This doesn't strike you as weird?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-02-2012, 03:45

What would qualify someone as a "little thug"?

So you must have a reasonable expectation that you will face death or bodily harm. But it's all contingent on your "belief," which is a bit of a lawyer's paradise. And note the "forcible felony" clause, which covers a lot of turf, given how broadly a felony is defined in some jurisdictions.

Still has to be "reasonable" belief...and that the force is "necessary"...the article I read recently had a pretty weak criticism from some prosecutor in florida with a bunch of experience with the law ("deserves a second look") or something so I'm doubtful that it's very bad...

As said, there's no evidence wannabe Rorschach was assaulted, but even if he was, put yourself in Trayvon's shoes: what would you do if some creepy a-hole was stalking you at night while you were just out getting snacks and you feared for your life. Would punching him really be out of the question?

Yes. Would you punch him??

People downplaying this or dismissing it out of hand are playing the rape card, like a twisted version of "oh well she was wearing slutty clothes, she was asking for it!" The fact that you even mentioned that he was suspended from school is ridiculous because it's completely irrelevant.

You just did this... "oh well he was being creepy and it was night time, he was asking to be punched!".

Sasaki Kojiro

04-02-2012, 07:56

I don't think this case is interesting in terms of self defense. It doesn't make much sense to have carrying a gun be legal but not have laws that err on the side of self defense. If shootings are your concern then you want to make carrying guns illegal. I also don't think the supposed racial issues with zimmerman or the prosecutors or anything are at all significant. Zimmerman is overzealous and the prosecutors are presumably right that there isn't a case.

The real problem is that every time there is a ridiculous overreaction to a story like this, and people are rallied to a bogus cause when most likely nothing is going to come of it, more and more people become disaffected.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is reporting that media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case has become the first story in 2012 to be featured more than the presidential race.

:shame:

Goofball

04-02-2012, 16:35

Devastatin Dave

04-02-2012, 18:49

This is a kind of strange perspective to take, especially given that video of the shooter (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-shooter-george-zimmerman-appears-uninjured-police-video-night-shooting-article-1.1052433) taken a short time after this supposed assault shows the shooter completely unmarked. Nothing on his face, not limping, no marks, no grass stains, nothing. Surely if he were assaulted so fiercely that lethal force was appropriate, he would show some indication of having been in a fight, yes?

Besides which, the creepy thing is not the racial angle, but the legal one. The notion that I can shoot an unarmed person dead on a public street and not even get taken into custody? Please tell me how that is not insane. At the absolute minimum the police should have taken the shooter, relieved him of his weapon, and interviewed everyone within a hundred yards to get the clearest picture of what happened. None of that occurred. To fall back behind, "Well, the kid was a thug," is thoughtless, mindless.

As you are clearly demonstrating. Think about the implications of this over-broad, over-reaching "Stand Your Ground" law. It's not good. Try to stop reflexively reacting to the racial angle.

There's more to it. The "Stand Your Ground" law originated with ALEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council), 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!

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-enhanced-video-040212_1_reporter-matt-gutman-abc-news-neighborhood-watch-volunteer-zimmerman
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/nbc-investigating-segment-on-zimmerman-call.html?imw=Y

Lemur

04-02-2012, 18:58

Have you ever considered the grand old tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?
If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.

rvg

04-02-2012, 19:00

If I may repeat something I've said multiple times in this thread, Zimmerman should have his day in court. What creeped me out was the apparent attempt to prevent that from happening.

It did go before the grand jury... Nothing since then. Maybe the jury decided there was nothing that would warrant a trial.

Lemur

04-02-2012, 19:06

It did go before the grand jury...
I'd like to see a source for that. Last I heard it had not, and is now slated for a Federal grand jury (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-20120329,0,4927997.story). Did it actually go in front of a Florida grand jury? This is news.

Devastatin Dave

04-02-2012, 19:08

Goofball

04-02-2012, 19:41

I'd like to see a source for that. Last I heard it had not, and is now slated for a Federal grand jury (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-20120329,0,4927997.story). Did it actually go in front of a Florida grand jury? This is news.

It never went before a grand jury. I just read that the detective in charge initially put forward an affidavit recommending charges for Zimmerman, but the local state's attorney declined:

ABC News has reported that the lead homicide investigator, Chris Serino, filed an affidavit pushing for charges the night of the killing, but was overruled by the state attorney's office.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

gaelic cowboy

04-03-2012, 10:33

It never went before a grand jury. I just read that the detective in charge initially put forward an affidavit recommending charges for Zimmerman, but the local state's attorney declined:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Sounds to me like the states attorney there just didnt want the hassle of the case, he probably hoped it would just fade away.

From what I read here in Ireland it looks like social media put paid to that idea soon enough. (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/26/social-media-the-muscle-behind-the-trayvon-martin-movement/)

Lemur

04-03-2012, 17:44

The Onion, as per usual, nails it:

Florida Police Warn Public Against Taking Law Into Own Hands Unless It’s That Law Specifically Designed For You To Do That (http://www.theonion.com/articles/florida-police-warn-public-against-taking-law-into,27832/)

SANFORD, FL—Amidst the controversy surrounding the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department cautioned Florida residents Tuesday against taking the law into their own hands, except when following the state statute that explicitly authorizes people to do so. "Let me be clear: We do not want citizens resorting to deadly force when they believe they're being threatened—unless, of course, they are following the letter of the law, which says they can resort to deadly force when they believe they're being threatened," said interim Sanford police chief Darren Scott, referring to the state's "Stand Your Ground" rule. "Law enforcement should be left to the police. However, it can also be left to common citizens, since pursuing vigilante justice is perfectly within their legal rights. Have I made myself clear?" After being bombarded with questions about the confusing nature of the law, a flustered Scott said, "Just don't be racist and kill people, okay?"

econ21

04-05-2012, 00:42

Lemur, is that Onion piece for real or is it satire? I hope it's satire, because Jon Stewart could not have written it better.

Lemur

04-07-2012, 08:15

The Onion is the finest news source in America.

And I'm glad to see that armed white supremacists are roving around Sanford, Florida (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php). That's the one thing this case was missing. I mean, the New Black Panthers are already offering a bounty, so why shouldn't the New Klan get involved?

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Because nothing diffuses racial tension like gun-toting racial separatists patrolling an already on-edge community.

Schoep, whose neo-Nazi group is based in Detroit, tells Riptide the patrols are a response to white residents' fears of a race riot.

A group called the New Black Panther Party recently offered $10,000 for a citizens' arrest of George Zimmerman, Martin's shooter. Schoep said the bounty is a sign that "the possibility of further racial violence... is brimming over like a powder keg ready to explode into the streets."

Lemur

04-07-2012, 19:15

This case is really bringing out the worst in some people. John Derbyshire posts a hypothetical talk (http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/page_2#axzz1rNa7W24X) non-black parents can have with their chilluns about race. This does not appear to be parody.

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites.Nothing like pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire! Wheeee!

Sasaki Kojiro

04-07-2012, 20:54

As you get older, the world starts to pass you by. This is sad, but inevitable. The world — its manners and fashions, its demographic and geostrategic facts — changes steadily, but you don't change much after you reach adulthood. I have expressed elsewhere the idea that at age 20, a human being is pretty much "done" — cooked all through.

https://i41.tinypic.com/w1tjma.jpg

Your circumstances might change quite dramatically, of course. You might even get rich and famous in your old age after a lifetime of penury, like Patrick O'Brian, when the lonely, barren furrow you have been plowing all your life suddenly, on account of some change in the climate of public taste, brings forth a bumper crop. You yourself, though — your personality — isn't going to change much after twenty. The older I myself get, in fact, the more I incline to the view Hazlitt arrived at in his own later years, that the core essentials are fixed at birth.

I was mulling on these melancholy truths the other day while browsing in Orwell's essays. The particular thought I was mulling was, that foreigners are no longer funny. I miss that — I mean, I miss laughing at foreigners.

:laugh4: :laugh4:

Lemur

04-09-2012, 18:55

Well, Derb got himself fired, no idea if he cares. I kinda agree with this assessment (http://theamericanscene.com/2012/04/08/how-a-racist-blended-in) of NRO, however:

[National Review] can be described as consistently skeptical that white racism is relevant to contemporary politics despite its own evident fascination with the topic. It shows no reservation about caricaturing/over-interpreting a black president’s statements and policies to paint him as a racial aggressor. It consistently addresses the topic of racism in a glib, dismissive, or superior tone. I cannot recall—and could not find in several hours looking through the NRO archives—one substantial piece of writing that addressed racism in the U.S. as anything besides a minor, unimportant problem. With a big stretch of generosity, one could say National Review treats the subject casually.

PanzerJaeger

04-09-2012, 21:56

This case is really bringing out the worst in some people.

Much of what he said is SOP in cities like Memphis, Detroit, and Atlanta. Honestly, as I read through the list, my reaction was more of a 'well yeah' than shock or anger. It was more surprising that someone would actually write it. Such things are best learned through experience and not shared.

He is way off on his last point. IQ scores indicate that mean black intelligence is only marginally lower than that of whites IIRC.

rory_20_uk

04-10-2012, 08:22

The relative rates of incarceration would need an alternate explanation then.

~:smoking:

spankythehippo

04-10-2012, 10:09

Just thought you intellectuals would like to hear some different opinions on the matter.

Here is one such scholar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EboACsNuyA0

*snicker*

Lemur

04-10-2012, 15:54

The war is over. Some people refuse to believe it.
I'm not clear on how anything is a "war." Look, you know I believe racism is overrated as a sin. But that doesn't mean I think it's somehow magically a non-force now that we have a black President. There are still plenty of life-and-death situations where it's a bad idea to be a black man (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/echoes-trayvon-martin-kenneth-chamberlain-sr) of any age, education, service or income.

I find it particularly interesting that some rightwingers now believe that it is (a) safe to assert that white racism is a nonissue, thanks to Barry O'Bama, and (b) it is equally safe to accuse anyone of any color of race-baiting if they ever dare suggest that white racism might play any role anywhere. Really, when you think about it, racists got the better deal with the election of Obama.

Vladimir

04-10-2012, 17:09

The relative rates of incarceration would need an alternate explanation then.

~:smoking:

Check your logic. What does one have to do with the other?

ajaxfetish

04-10-2012, 22:32

Check your logic. What does one have to do with the other?

That's the question, isn't it? Why is it that a disproportionately high number of black men are prison inmates?

Ajax

Centurion1

04-10-2012, 22:41

That's the question, isn't it? Why is it that a disproportionately high number of black men are prison inmates?

Ajax

Because they are poor. I'm struggling to refrain from adding a ******* to the end of that one.

Poor people go to prison. Poor people are often minorities. Unfortunate but that's what it is. More unfortunate is that it will likely always be that way. It is very hard to escape the morass of poverty especially with the kind of culture that has been created within the ghettos of America.

ajaxfetish

04-11-2012, 01:53

Because they are poor. I'm struggling to refrain from adding a ******* to the end of that one.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that's the main factor (not sure what the **** thing is all about). On the other hand, is the incarceration rate for whites and blacks the same when adjusted for poverty? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it's still higher for blacks. A little scrounging online seems to indicate that black Americans are between two and three times as likely as whites to be poor (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1), but are between 5 and 6 times as likely to be incarcerated (http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf). So I don't think socio-economic status can be the only explaining factor. There are clearly other variables at play, also operating along racial lines.

Ajax

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2012, 02:29

Yep. I'm pretty sure that's the main factor (not sure what the **** thing is all about). On the other hand, is the incarceration rate for whites and blacks the same when adjusted for poverty? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it's still higher for blacks. A little scrounging online seems to indicate that black Americans are between two and three times as likely as whites to be poor (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1), but are between 5 and 6 times as likely to be incarcerated (http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf). So I don't think socio-economic status can be the only explaining factor. There are clearly other variables at play, also operating along racial lines.

Ajax

Hmm but what does simply being below the poverty line or not tell you? That hardly captures socio-economic status.

There is, at present, no consensus as to the causes behind the racial disproportionality in arrests, charges and incarceration of African Americans in the United States. However, scholars agree that more research is needed. Gary LaFree gives an account of how studies correlating race and crime were discouraged from the 1960s on as sociologists developed a sensitivity to research that could be seen as placing blame on those who could be victims of racial discrimination.[50]
He further identifies an urgent need for renewed studies of race differences in crime. John Paul Wright, associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, opines that the connection between crime and race should be studied "honestly and courageously" precisely because it is African Americans who have suffered most from the America's collective failure to understand and control street crime. No other group, says Wright, would benefit more from a "candid examination of race and crime."[51]
Engaging in the direct study of race and crime, however, is not a straightforward matter. Wright observes that researchers who produce findings which identify race as a determining factor in criminal behavior run the risk of "public repudiation, professional exile, and even career death".[52] He writes: "If social security is the holy grail of politics, race and crime is the holy grail of criminology. Touch it and you expose yourself to wrath and fury. For this reason, many criminologists are loath to examine the connection between race and crime outside the modern sociological paradigm that holds that race is a mere social construct - that is, something defined by any given society, ... a 'social invention'."[51] Other scholars have also deplored the current climate surrounding the discussion of race and crime. Professors of sociology Robert J. Sampson and William Julius Wilson of Harvard University describe it as "mired in an unproductive mix of controversy and silence."[53]

Perhaps we'll never know :shrug:

econ21

04-11-2012, 02:53

Researching at racial differences in socio-economic outcomes is an academic minefield, that's true. The idea of race as a "mere social construct" does have some appeal: we use it as a short-hand "race" for something that may be more cultural than anything to do with skin colour. I met a Kenyan professor who did his Phd in the States and was aghast at some of the attitudes he encountered in African Americans (I think he was in Chicago) and felt more at home among whites while overseas. It's seems likely that the legacy of slavery and official discrimination has led to racial problems in the Americas that don't exist in, say, Kenya or even to the same degree in Europe. (They do probably exist with a vengeance in South Africa, though.)

Thinking about Ajaxfetish's question, my first reaction was to equate it with the issue of racial differences in crime rates, but that may have been hasty. For example, blacks and whites in the US are equally likely to use and sell drugs, but black men are 12 times more likely to be imprisoned for it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/the-reasons-why-so-many-b_b_883310.html

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2012, 03:02

Thinking about Ajaxfetish's question, my first reaction was to equate it with the issue of racial differences in crime rates, but that may have been hasty. For example, blacks and whites in the US are equally likely to use and sell drugs, but black men are 12 times more likely to be imprisoned for it:

What explains the difference?

PanzerJaeger

04-11-2012, 04:25

What explains the difference?

As I understand it, a lot of it has to do with the comparative size of their criminal records. White people in suburbia arrested for petty drug use often have little or no criminal past, while blacks often have other crimes in their past which effects sentencing. You won't hear that from the baiters though, who, having to adjust their strategy to contend with a distinct lack of overt racism, have decided to use black America's own failings to claim institutional racism.

a completely inoffensive name

04-11-2012, 05:29

spankythehippo

04-11-2012, 09:22

(not sure what the **** thing is all about)

He means taking a stroll through the lavender passageway. If you know what I mean. :wiseguy:

Yep. I'm pretty sure that's the main factor. On the other hand, is the incarceration rate for whites and blacks the same when adjusted for poverty? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that it's still higher for blacks. A little scrounging online seems to indicate that black Americans are between two and three times as likely as whites to be poor (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1), but are between 5 and 6 times as likely to be incarcerated (http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf). So I don't think socio-economic status can be the only explaining factor. There are clearly other variables at play, also operating along racial lines.

Ajax

It is not race that determines incarceration rate. This is a nature vs nurture issue. It is not in their nature to commit crime, they have been nurtured in that way. The son of Mother Teresa could live a life among hoodlums, and chances are, he will become a hoodlum.

In a way, this is a racial issue, but they are not incarcerated just for being black. It just so happens that they are very sensitive about their race, and are easy to lash out. Hence, higher incarceration rate. But this is not the only contributing factor. Socioeconomic status bears a lot of weight on criminal tendencies. But it IS a big factor.

Also, some people commit crimes to look cool. And it doesn't. It makes you look like a ****.

Papewaio

04-11-2012, 09:59

Being a poor minority does disenfranchise people from the mainstream.

And socio-economic background particularly parenting is a major factor in how a child develops.

It's interesting to see how different immigrant groups prosper in new countries. Those which integrate, which work hard, which have a low crime rate... Look for the magic sauce in that.

Building block of societies are families. Dysfunctional families in groups create dysfunctional neighborhoods. Make it multi-generational and you have self replicating dysfunctional groups. The key is to figure out what can be done to stop the cancerous spread and reverse it. One thing to do is penalize deadbeat dads on the social welfare system. However as enamouring as that stick is, it doesn't stop the next generation forming. You've got to somehow instill pride in self and something to live for in youths who have no viable role models.

Strike For The South

04-11-2012, 16:42

As I understand it, a lot of it has to do with the comparative size of their criminal records. White people in suburbia arrested for petty drug use often have little or no criminal past, while blacks often have other crimes in their past which effects sentencing. You won't hear that from the baiters though, who, having to adjust their strategy to contend with a distinct lack of overt racism, have decided to use black America's own failings to claim institutional racism.

It becomes a revolving door only after the book gets thrown at them the first time.

The outcomes of the United States justice system are racist. That is not to say the institutions are racist but the end result certainly is.

I don't think you can ever prove why that is without conjecture but we can at least acknoweldge that fact. The data points that out beyond a doubt.

We are only 40 years removed from firebombings and assinations for equal voting rights. Why is it so out of the realm of possibilty that the system can still be prejudical?

Really the end result of the disproportionate penal population is the culmination of a litany of things including but not limited to the drug war, overcrowding, three strike, mandatory minimums, the fallacy of being "tough on crime", bias

Strike For The South

04-11-2012, 16:46

I take it you are not a fan of the book "The New Jim Crow" that all the Sociology majors at my campus have to read.

The book consolidated all the information that was already out there but yea, its a good read

econ21

04-11-2012, 17:13

What explains the difference?

According to the article I linked, it's partly higher arrest rates and partly higher rates of imprisonment if arrested. The article focuses on the former, arguing that blacks are more likely to be stopped and searched, and are more intensively policed. It's not just that the white drug users in suburbia get more lenient treatment if caught, they are much less likely to be caught.

Although Black people are 12 percent of the population and 14 percent of drug users, according to Mauer and Cole, they comprise 34 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 45 percent of those incarcerated in state prisons for such offenses.

Lemur

04-11-2012, 21:12

Another one bites the dust (http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/295729/regarding-robert-weissberg-rich-lowry) at NRO.

In fairness, I do understand why some folks are dismissive of white racism. The video linked below the spoil, for example, is guaranteed to make any citizen's blood boil, especially when the chief of police announces it is not a hate crime (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-10/news/bal-bealefeld-downtown-beating-not-a-hate-crime-20120410_1_crime-charges-elderly-black-fisherman-white-police-commissioner).

Warning, graphic video of a guy getting mobbed, beaten and stripped (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoEh-ZwlCI). Profanity is the least of it. Guaranteed to raise your blood pressure and make you angry/sick/disgusted, so watch at own risk.

Strike For The South

04-11-2012, 21:16

Racism ended becuase white America thinks racism ended.

There is implicit privellge with being born white in America.

I don't think you can legislate it out nor do I think you can guilt people into changing the paramaters in which we operate

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2012, 21:32

According to the article I linked, it's partly higher arrest rates and partly higher rates of imprisonment if arrested. The article focuses on the former, arguing that blacks are more likely to be stopped and searched, and are more intensively policed. It's not just that the white drug users in suburbia get more lenient treatment if caught, they are much less likely to be caught.

I mean, are the authors right? And what's the conclusion supposed to be? As it stands they are just quoting an empty statistic.

I worry about the quality of our debate on this stuf...liberals are far far far to eager to score political points by talking about racist conservatives ( and if they have a chance to work in some pet policy issue of theirs like gun control or the death penalty or drug wars they jump on it) and by now republicans are sick of it and assume anything the liberals say about it is bogus race baiting. Liberals are far too happy to believe the problem is something they enjoy it being. In the end all that's said is a bunch of tv pundit talking point crap.

Lemur

04-11-2012, 21:42

liberals are far far far to eager to score political points by talking about racist conservatives ( and if they have a chance to work in some pet policy issue of theirs like gun control or the death penalty or drug wars they jump on it) and by now republicans are sick of it and assume anything the liberals say about it is bogus race baiting. Liberals are far too happy to believe the problem is something they enjoy it being.
That's exceptionally cynical, even by your standards. I find it hard to believe that everyone is acting in complete and total bad faith.

In other news, charges will be filed and there will be a trial (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57412535/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-case/). Good. That's how this is supposed to work.

According to a senior law enforcement official, Corey is expected to announce that Zimmerman will face state charges. The number or nature of the charges was not immediately known. [...]

Some of the charges that Zimmerman could possibly face range from involuntary manslaughter to voluntary manslaughter to second-degree murder, according to Mary Anne Franks, associate law professor at the University of Miami School of Law in Coral Gables, Florida. Both involuntary and voluntary manslaughter could carry up to 15 years to prison, while the second-degree murder charge could carry a sentence of life in prison.

The law enforcement official said that authorities knew where Zimmerman was and were planning to arrest him soon rather than let him turn himself in. The official said he was not in Florida.

Strike For The South

04-11-2012, 21:44

lyk dis if u cry everytym

PanzerJaeger

04-11-2012, 21:48

I take it you are not a fan of the book "The New Jim Crow" that all the Sociology majors at my campus have to read.

I am not. The author goes to ridiculous lengths to blame black incarceration rates on anything and everything besides black behavior, and her talk of a new caste system and a new Jim Crow forces the reader to question her grasp of the subject matter. Also, it is essentially a copy of several other books with the author's unsupported assertions worked in here and there. Basically, it is pseudo intellectual dribble propped up by pseudo science meant to give new life to the black oppression industry, and it does not surprise me that it is being peddled on college campuses.

If the author wanted to be truly groundbreaking, as her prose makes it desperately clear that she does, she could have attempted to address the reasons why black people are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than other races. Such an investigation would have certainly highlighted some actually important issues surrounding severe poverty, the lack of opportunities in inner cities, the cultural failings surrounding familial and parental expectations, and a culture that glorifies criminal activity. Such a line of reasoning apparently did not occur to the author as she seems incapable of accepting the basic premise, preferring to blame all of black America's problems on what she refers to as the 'white system'.

It becomes a revolving door only after the book gets thrown at them the first time.

The outcomes of the United States justice system are racist. That is not to say the institutions are racist but the end result certainly is.

I don't think you can ever prove why that is without conjecture but we can at least acknoweldge that fact. The data points that out beyond a doubt.

We are only 40 years removed from firebombings and assinations for equal voting rights. Why is it so out of the realm of possibilty that the system can still be prejudical?

Really the end result of the disproportionate penal population is the culmination of a litany of things including but not limited to the drug war, overcrowding, three strike, mandatory minimums, the fallacy of being "tough on crime", bias

I do not believe adverse impact is a valid concept. Black people are imprisoned more often than whites for the same crimes because they often have longer criminal records than whites. Black people are policed more than whites because they often live in high crime areas - crimes committed by black people. The truth is that black people are the genesis of the 'problem' of disproportionately high black incarceration rates. I would even go so far as to say that black people are the genesis of most of their own problems in contemporary times. That fact cannot be obscured by conjuring up sympathetic emotional appeals to fire bombings or other excesses from the '60s.

What is more disturbing is the logical outcome of such thinking - affirmative action in sentencing.

Strike For The South

04-11-2012, 22:14

I'm not absolving anyone of their crimes, just looking for answers. What passes for black culture in America is really the culture of the underclass, and a big reason for the cycle of povertyYes it is true blacks have longer records and live in higher crime areas due to the fact the book is thrown at them more oftenI'm not asking for any special treatment just recognition. The problems can be fixed or at least mitigated without ever bringing race into the legislationTyped from my 0hone

a completely inoffensive name

04-12-2012, 03:50

I am not. The author goes to ridiculous lengths to blame black incarceration rates on anything and everything besides black behavior, and her talk of a new caste system and a new Jim Crow forces the reader to question her grasp of the subject matter. Also, it is essentially a copy of several other books with the author's unsupported assertions worked in here and there. Basically, it is pseudo intellectual dribble propped up by pseudo science meant to give new life to the black oppression industry, and it does not surprise me that it is being peddled on college campuses.

If the author wanted to be truly groundbreaking, as her prose makes it desperately clear that she does, she could have attempted to address the reasons why black people are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than other races. Such an investigation would have certainly highlighted some actually important issues surrounding severe poverty, the lack of opportunities in inner cities, the cultural failings surrounding familial and parental expectations, and a culture that glorifies criminal activity. Such a line of reasoning apparently did not occur to the author as she seems incapable of accepting the basic premise, preferring to blame all of black America's problems on what she refers to as the 'white system'.

But let's talk about an example and see what your response is to that. If I remember correctly, the penalties for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are very disproportionate. Drugs are often absorbed and incorporated into a "scene" or social group and associated with them thereafter. For crack cocaine, it's the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder, while powdered cocaine is what the rich bankers and wall street types are doing off their escorts for the night. It's the same drug, cocaine, just in different forms, different methods of absorption into your body. Why is it that the one which affects the disproportionately poor black is punished way, way harsher? You can talk all you want about black behavior, but why is it that the laws are different to begin with, and is this a problem from your perspective?

Mind you, I am not trying to take a side here. I just want your side fleshed out a bit more.

Centurion1

04-12-2012, 03:59

But let's talk about an example and see what your response is to that. If I remember correctly, the penalties for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are very disproportionate. Drugs are often absorbed and incorporated into a "scene" or social group and associated with them thereafter. For crack cocaine, it's the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder, while powdered cocaine is what the rich bankers and wall street types are doing off their escorts for the night. It's the same drug, cocaine, just in different forms, different methods of absorption into your body. Why is it that the one which affects the disproportionately poor black is punished way, way harsher? You can talk all you want about black behavior, but why is it that the laws are different to begin with, and is this a problem from your perspective?

Mind you, I am not trying to take a side here. I just want your side fleshed out a bit more.

Poor whites do crack also. Punishments for meth are very high as well a drug mostly used by whites. It all revolves around wealth not race. Blacks will never be able to advance in American society like they whine for until they discard their asbsurd and constant victim complex. Where is the thread for the beating of that white man in Baltimore by those blacks? Now THERE is a racially motivated crime. I'm sick of America's obsession with color its pathetic.

GC seriously you change your opinion on everything so quickly..... do you possess any deep seated beliefs whatsoever

a completely inoffensive name

04-12-2012, 04:17

Poor whites do crack also. Punishments for meth are very high as well a drug mostly used by whites. It all revolves around wealth not race. Blacks will never be able to advance in American society like they whine for until they discard their asbsurd and constant victim complex. Where is the thread for the beating of that white man in Baltimore by those blacks? Now THERE is a racially motivated crime. I'm sick of America's obsession with color its pathetic.

And there are rich blacks as well. This is all missing the point though. Blacks are disproportionately in the lower ends and whites the other way around. I don't know the proper expression, but you get what I am saying Cent, yes?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-12-2012, 04:31

PanzerJaeger

04-12-2012, 05:13

In fairness, I do understand why some folks are dismissive of white racism. The video linked below the spoil, for example, is guaranteed to make any citizen's blood boil, especially when the chief of police announces it is not a hate crime (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-10/news/bal-bealefeld-downtown-beating-not-a-hate-crime-20120410_1_crime-charges-elderly-black-fisherman-white-police-commissioner).

Warning, graphic video of a guy getting mobbed, beaten and stripped (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwoEh-ZwlCI). Profanity is the least of it. Guaranteed to raise your blood pressure and make you angry/sick/disgusted, so watch at own risk.

That puts Mr. Derbishire's rules for navigating America's racial waters in a different perspective, no? That poor tourist broke a number of them and paid the price.

But let's talk about an example and see what your response is to that. If I remember correctly, the penalties for crack cocaine and powdered cocaine are very disproportionate. Drugs are often absorbed and incorporated into a "scene" or social group and associated with them thereafter. For crack cocaine, it's the lower ends of the socioeconomic ladder, while powdered cocaine is what the rich bankers and wall street types are doing off their escorts for the night. It's the same drug, cocaine, just in different forms, different methods of absorption into your body. Why is it that the one which affects the disproportionately poor black is punished way, way harsher? You can talk all you want about black behavior, but why is it that the laws are different to begin with, and is this a problem from your perspective?

Mind you, I am not trying to take a side here. I just want your side fleshed out a bit more.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. When crack hit the scene in the 80's, it was devastating to urban communities in a way that powdered cocaine never was (Wall Street types could party on the weekends and make it in to work on Mondays). Politicians, including many black leaders, pushed for tougher laws on crack in response to the perceived crisis, just as meth laws have been strengthened in response to the real or imagined 'epidemic'. It is standard fare for politicians to react to ‘crises’ with tough legislation.

Debating the efficacy of such legislation and particularly whether harsher sentences deter drug use is a legitimate discussion. What is not legitimate is to inject race into the issue in order to imply the existence of some nefarious system built to keep the black man down. I mean, if it could be said that crack is a black drug (which it certainly is not), it could be said that meth is the drug of choice for white trash across the country. Should the war on meth be interpreted as a plot to keep Appalachia in trailer parks and out of mainstream society? The author and people who argue from that perspective twist facts and stats to fit a racially driven narrative that an objective analysis of that information would not support. It is intellectually bankrupt race baiting, and it should be called out as such.

The real story, if there is one to tell, is that harsh drug laws probably do more damage than good. And to bring this all the way back to Trayvon Martin: as Lemur has said, there is a legitimate story about whether the police responded to the incident correctly or not. However, the race baiters have twisted the story into one of racism and racial injustice, despite all facts to the contrary. I hate these people. They seek division and perpetual racial disharmony in America under the guise of fighting for the exact opposite position.

rory_20_uk

04-12-2012, 08:10

Tough legislation would be a good idea - make the tough decision to legalise it and set up a god newtork of support and rehab clinics. Take a way the stigma.

Posturing to lock people up for 50 years is easy.

~:smoking:

Centurion1

04-12-2012, 10:41

And there are rich blacks as well. This is all missing the point though. Blacks are disproportionately in the lower ends and whites the other way around. I don't know the proper expression, but you get what I am saying Cent, yes?

Thus proving my point, it is not racial its about the lower classes being underrepresented. Why blacks are poor is another minefield to cross.

Strike For The South

04-13-2012, 15:39

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. When crack hit the scene in the 80's, it was devastating to urban communities in a way that powdered cocaine never was (Wall Street types could party on the weekends and make it in to work on Mondays). Politicians, including many black leaders, pushed for tougher laws on crack in response to the perceived crisis, just as meth laws have been strengthened in response to the real or imagined 'epidemic'. It is standard fare for politicians to react to ‘crises’ with tough legislation.

Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. The idea that somehow the wall street types were more apt to pull themselves out of their drug stupor is a fallacy. Walls Streets neighborhoods were less patrolled, their lawyers better, and the sentences lighter. Thus poor black men go to prison longer and more often and they come out violent.

Debating the efficacy of such legislation and particularly whether harsher sentences deter drug use is a legitimate discussion. What is not legitimate is to inject race into the issue in order to imply the existence of some nefarious system built to keep the black man down. I mean, if it could be said that crack is a black drug (which it certainly is not), it could be said that meth is the drug of choice for white trash across the country. Should the war on meth be interpreted as a plot to keep Appalachia in trailer parks and out of mainstream society? The author and people who argue from that perspective twist facts and stats to fit a racially driven narrative that an objective analysis of that information would not support. It is intellectually bankrupt race baiting, and it should be called out as such.

It's not nefarious nor is it a conspiracy. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical data to back this up, we all know it is but if want me to link it I can. Certain legislation has led to racial outcomes in the judicary that can't be chalked up to chance alone. Now I certainly don't place the blame soley on the justice system, the media is just a cuppable for glorfying black culture in the most primal ways.

I agree the drug war is the root of all this, I'm just not going to discount the race factor simply becuase it's icky. Race baiting is Trayvon Martin, this is not.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-13-2012, 17:07

Why would cops patrol low crime neighborhoods instead of high crime neighborhoods? I would rather someone explained the empirical data to me than linked to it. It's quite possible that the best police method leads to a disparate outcome. Should we make it so that all lawyers work for the same fee?

edit: basically, one of the main justifications for the war on drugs is supposed to be that it allows police to go after violent criminals. People who get beat up often are wary of testifying, so it's much more effective to get the violent criminals on drug charges.

Lemur

04-13-2012, 17:20

Going back to the Martin case, now that Zimmerman is charged and in custody, the best possible outcome would be for him to get a fair trial (http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-fair-trial-070000590.html). Here's hoping.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-14-2012, 16:58

Sasaki Kojiro

04-17-2012, 23:42

On topic:

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

HEATHER MAC DONALD
Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race
The New York Times is at it again.
14 May 2010
The New York Times’s front page story this week on the New York Police Department and its allegedly racist stop-and-frisk practices follows a well-worn template: give specific racial breakdowns for every aspect of police behavior, but refer to racial crime rates only in the most attenuated of terms. Disclosing crime rates—the proper benchmark against which police behavior must be measured—would demolish a cornerstone of the Times’s worldview: that the New York Police Department, like police departments across America, oppresses the city’s black population with unjustified racial tactics.

This week’s story, written by Al Baker, began with what the Times thinks is a shocking disparity: “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.” (The fact that blacks, Hispanics, and whites are arrested at the same rate after a stop undercuts, rather than supports, the thesis of racially biased policing, but more on that later.)

The Times’s story includes a graphic breakdown of police stops by race: blacks made up 55 percent of all stops in 2009, though they’re only 23 percent of the city’s population; whites accounted for 10 percent of all stops, though they’re 35 percent of the city’s population; Hispanics made up 32 percent of all stops, though 28 percent of the population, and Asians, 3 percent of all stops and 12 percent of the population. The article details a host of other police actions by specific racial numbers, including arrests, frisks, and use of force.

But when the Times gets around to mentioning crime rates, more than halfway into the piece, it does so only because the NYPD raises them in its defense, not because the Times deems them independently worthy of note in a story on police stops. And it mentions them only as a form of reported speech, in the most generalized of terms: “Mr. Browne, the department spokesman, . . . said the stops mirrored crime—that while a large percentage of the stops involved blacks, an even larger percentage of violent crimes involved suspects described as black by their victims.” This formula, which carefully brackets a non-specific statement about crime rates as what the police department says, as opposed to simply what the facts are, is by now standard Times practice:

February 11, 2010: “Police officials have said that while a large percentage of the street stops involve blacks, an even larger percentage of crimes involve suspects described as black by their victims.”

May 13, 2009: “On Tuesday, Mr. Browne said that the stops ‘comport by race proportionally with descriptions provided by crime victims.’”

February 11, 2009: “The police have said that while a large percentage of the stops involve black people, an even larger percentage of crimes involve suspects described as black by their victims.”

May 6, 2008: “The police have said that while a large percentage of the street stops involve black people, an even larger percentage of crimes involve suspects described as black by their victims.”

Only in 2007 did the Times disclose some actual black crime rates in discussing stop-and-frisk activity—though as usual, only as an aspect of the NYPD’s defense of itself, and only by attributing those crime rates to what the police “say,” as if they were a matter of opinion, unlike the stop-and-frisk rates, which the paper reports as a fact so indisputable that it does not need a source. That 2007 slip has never been allowed to reappear, however; the disclosure of crime rates has been purged from all subsequent Times stories on the NYPD’s stop activities. The actual numbers convey the shocking magnitude of the city’s crime disparities with a vividness that a mere generalized statement about a “larger percentage of crimes than stops” cannot, which is why the numbers are almost always left out. The actual crime rates reveal that blacks are being significantly understopped, compared with their representation in the city’s criminal population, another reason for omitting them from the paper’s reporting.

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

You cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime. Crime is what drives NYPD tactics; it is the basis of everything the department does. And crime, as reported by victims and witnesses, sends police overwhelmingly to minority neighborhoods, because that’s where the vast majority of crime occurs—by minority criminals against minority victims.

The Times’s analysis, by contrast, which follows in lock step with the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, assumes that policing should mirror census data. The only numerical benchmark that the Times provides for the NYPD’s stop data is the city’s population ratios. According to this analysis, since whites are 35 percent of the city’s population, they should be 35 percent of police stops, even though they commit only 5 percent of all violent crimes. But using census data as a benchmark for policing is as nonsensical as it would be to use census data for fire department activity. If a particular census tract has a disproportionate number of fires, and another census tract has none, no one expects the FDNY to send out fire trucks to non-existent fires in the fire-free census tract just for the sake of equal representation.

The proactive policing revolution that began under NYPD Commissioner William Bratton and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in 1994 declared that the police would actually lower crime—an unheard-of idea in the annals of policing. To accomplish that feat, the department began rigorously scrutinizing crime data on a daily basis and deploying officers to crime hot spots. Once there, officers were expected to be on the look-out for suspicious behavior. If there had been a string of robberies at ATMs in East Flatbush, for example, and an officer saw two guys apparently casing an ATM user from across the street, who then walked quickly away when they spotted the uniform, the officer was expected to stop and question the two men. If thieves had been preying on senior citizens in Harlem, someone walking closely behind a retiree in the 28th precinct and looking furtively over his shoulder would likely be stopped by an officer deployed there in response to the crime spike. Those stops may not have resulted in an arrest, if no evidence of a crime were found, but they may have disrupted a crime in the making.

This data-driven, proactive style of policing, which came to be known as Compstat, led to the largest crime drop in recent memory. The biggest returns were in New York’s minority neighborhoods, because that’s where crime was and still is the highest. Blacks and Hispanics have made up 79 percent of the 78 percent decline in homicide victims since 1990. Over 10,000 black and Hispanic males are alive today who would have been dead had homicide rates remained at early 1990s levels.

The Times’s article is filled with the usual NYPD critics. There’s Donna Lieberman and Christopher Dunn from the New York Civil Liberties Union, Darius Charney from the Center for Constitutional Rights (which is suing the department over its stop policies), Jeffrey Fagan from Columbia University law school, and “researchers” from the Center on Race, Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. These critics’ understanding of policing and crime is quixotic, to put it kindly. At a panel on stop and frisks at the New York City Bar Association this March (in which I participated), Fagan proposed the Chicago Police Department, which does not use proactive stops, as a model of policing that the NYPD should emulate. Fagan did not mention that New York City’s homicide rate is two-fifths that of Chicago, and that juveniles in the Windy City under the age of 17 are killed at four times the rate of those in New York, an epidemic of youth killings so severe as to prompt an emergency visit from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last October. The director of John Jay’s Center on Race, Crime and Justice maintains that because the absolute number of homicides committed nationally by blacks, on the one hand, and whites and Hispanics, on the other, is roughly the same (though blacks commit more), there is no black crime problem.

The Times, however, did not consult any minority supporters of Compstat policing to get their perspective on whether the police are bearing down too hard in high-crime neighborhoods. A good place to start would have been a police-community meeting in East New York, Bedford-Stuyvesant, or other any high-crime area. Here is what the reporter would have heard from community members: “We want more officers, we want more arrests, we want the dealers off the corner.” The police cannot respond to these heartfelt requests for public safety without generating disproportionate stop data that can be used against them in a racial profiling law suit. If a grandmother in a public housing project calls the police about the young drug dealers in her lobby, a properly responsive officer is going to question the youths hanging out there. The officer is not “profiling” the youths; he is responding to a citizen request for action. But the NYCLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights will tally all those stops against the police as evidence of “racial profiling.” The police aren’t getting calls from Riverdale residents about the young gang members congregating on the corner or in their lobby. If they were, the police would respond the same way that they do in Harlem: by finding legal grounds to stop the gang members and let them know that they’re being watched. (For the record, the paper cited me as the other voice besides the NYPD spokesman supporting the department’s stop tactics.)

Contrary to the Times’s assumption, the fact that an identical proportion of stops of whites and blacks—10 percent—results in an arrest or summons strongly suggests that the police use the identical quantum of reasonable suspicion in stopping whites and blacks. The police stop a greater absolute number of blacks because the overwhelming majority of crime, suspicious behavior, and calls to respond to crime occurs in black neighborhoods.

Given the vast disproportion in the city’s crime rates, you can either have policing that goes after crime and saves minority lives, or you can have policing that mirrors the city’s census data. You cannot have both. If the NYPD responds to the incessant pressure from the Times and the city’s anti-cop activists to conform its policing activity to population rates, the law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods will be hurt the most.

The Times’s radically incomplete front-page story, like so many that preceded it, only makes the NYPD’s job more difficult. It fuels the animosity against the police that makes witnesses less likely to cooperate with officers and suspects more likely to resist arrest. It is crime, not race, that leads to more stops in minority neighborhoods. The crime disparities in the city are deeply troubling, and thus have been regarded as taboo. But until those crime rates are acknowledged, reporting on police activity through an incomplete racial lens will continue to defame the NYPD and mislead the public about its work.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal, the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Are Cops Racist? How the War Against the Police Harms Black Americans.

Interestingly the comments in the NYT article linked at the beginning are very anti-nyt on this one. How much of the anti-police stuff from left wing journalists is just an attempt at squeezing more mileage from racial profiling anecdotes?

I am african-american, a former New YOrker, female mid 40's well dressed. I was walking with a white female into subway in Brooklyn. A female officer stopped us and said to me and gestured "her bag," to me and a male officer doing the scanning. My friend thought she meant her, the fem officer again said-"no her." The only difference other than race was that my bag was slightly bigger-big enough for a computer. They swiped and scan my bag for bombs. I Felt I was racially profiled-even more I felt like we now live in a police state! The police man then asked us "so where are you guys coming from?" We just wanted to get on the subway that's all no more no less, freedom of movement freedom from harrassment. Is this still America?

Though they usually try better anecdotes than this one :laugh4:

PanzerJaeger

04-18-2012, 07:18

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.

Thank you for posting that article Sasaki.

This is what I was trying to say. The race baiters conflate the percentages of different races in the general population with the percentages of races in the criminal population in a cynical effort to prolong racial animus in the country. White privilege, institutional racism, and a new caste system are all red herrings. Prison populations are disproportionately black because the criminal population is disproportionately black. If they accurately represented racial crime rates, they would probably be even more black than they already are.

What is truly lamentable is that the current slate of black leadership is full such race baiters, more content to blame black problems on abstract, reality-challenged notions of white racism than to confront the truth about their own community. Until they do, black people will still make up an incredibly high percentage of the nation's criminals, and that fact will still somehow be the fault of white people.

In other news, another day, another clown with a scary amount of influence in national politics. (And no, she's not on her way to a costume party.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmg1aY6_AJI

ajaxfetish

04-18-2012, 14:45

So the critical question here (and one that may not have an easy answer) is why is the criminal population disproportionately black? Do we want to make any argument that it involves genetics? Can it all be explained by economic factors? How much of it is tied to black culture (and how did the culture get that way, and what would it take to change it)? What other factors may be playing a role?

Ajax

Lemur

04-18-2012, 14:53

Do we want to make any argument that it involves genetics?
That strikes me as unnecessary when there is a much more proximate cause for social-norm breakdown at hand: the deliberate breaking up of families (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/ensuringinequality.htm) under slavery.

The family is the basic unit of social cohesion and civilization. Destroy the family unit over multiple generations? You get what you get. (Reminds me of Lincoln's quote, not the one about the internet, but about how America will pay for slavery for at least as long as the peculiar institution existed. So 150 years down, only 250 to go!)

Note that black immigrants post-slavery generally adhere to the usual immigrant statistics; there's nothing extra-bad about them. They perform in line with the Irish and Italians and so on and so forth. So clearly the cause for breakdown is closer to home, and I think it's blindingly obvious.

No idea what our society as a whole can do to address it, however. No clear fixes for dysfunctional family units.

PanzerJaeger

04-18-2012, 20:14

That strikes me as unnecessary when there is a much more proximate cause for social-norm breakdown at hand: the deliberate breaking up of families (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/ensuringinequality.htm) under slavery.

I find it difficult to subscribe to this notion. It plays into white guilt more than statistical reality. Modern scholarship (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91931/michele-bachmann-rick-santorum-slavery-families?page=0,0) can trace no direct line between slavery and the state of the modern black family, as the breaking up of families was not as common as was once assumed and black families strengthened (i.e. became more two-parent) for several generations before deteriorating. Contemporary understanding of the problem pins the blame squarely on the welfare policies of the Great Society that perversely encouraged black men to live outside of the home so black women could collect.

IT ONCE WAS fashionable to suppose that slavery had made the conventional family difficult to sustain because of spouses so often being sold away from one another and children being separated from their parents. A natural conclusion was that, after slavery, the old patterns persisted, especially given how difficult conditions continued to be for black people, and that this was an understandable precursor to the fatherless norm in inner-city black communities after the 1960s. There is, indeed, sociological literature showing that it was hardly unknown for black people to be raised by single mothers during slavery and afterward. In fact, over the last 150 years, there have always been proportionately more single-parent black homes than white ones.

However, as classic work by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman has shown, despite the horrors of slavery, overall, during the pre-emancipation era, about two-thirds of enslaved families had two parents—far more than today. More recent revisionist work has stressed that, while forced separations were always an important part of the picture, the two-thirds figure remained dominant (Wilma Dunaway is especially handy on this). And this tendency continued into the Jim Crow era, contrary to a false sense one might have of daily life in a black ghetto of the 1930s and ’40s—think Richard Wright’s 12 Million Black Voices or Claude Brown’s Manchild in the Promised Land. Namely, it is wrong to suppose that, amid the misery of those neighborhoods, all but a sliver of children grew up without a dad. That is a modern phenomenon, whose current extent—fewer than one in three black children are raised by two parents—would shock even the poorest black folk 100 or even 50 years ago.

A standard reference on the subject by University of Minnesota historian Steven Ruggles in 1994 is most often taken as evidence of the uninteresting—that, gosh, in the old days poor black people didn’t find single parenthood unusual. What is actually more important in its findings is that, from 1880 to 1960, fewer than one in three black children nationwide didn’t grow up with two parents. Another key statistic, from Barbara Agresti in 1978, is that, just past emancipation, in 1870 in Walton County, Florida, about 57 percent of black children lived with two parents; just 15 years later, 89 percent did. Or, as St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton told us in Black Metropolis, in Chicago in the 1920s, it was considered a problem that just one in seven black children were born to single mothers. What’s more, that number went down during the Depression, not up.

Data like this are important because they show that the reason so few black children grow up without fathers today is not a mere matter of economics or, more graphically, because black men without college degrees find it so hard to get decent work that they abandon their children. After all, black people living under the vicious racism of 100 years ago nevertheless tended, very strongly, to form two-parent families.

Rather, what happens today is more a matter of what people in inner-city neighborhoods grow up seeing as normal (note my evasion of the loaded word culture, although for those who can stomach it, it is precisely what I mean). Plus, there is the sheer fact that, from the 1960s until 1996, expanded welfare policies made it possible to stay on welfare as a mother indefinitely without job training—impossible before the ’60s, and much less common today in most states than it was before 1996. This is why a man could so easily leave kids he fathered to be raised alone—and unsurprisingly, starting in the 1970s, an unprecedented number did.

Vladimir

04-18-2012, 20:50

Lemur

04-18-2012, 21:22

Modern scholarship (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91931/michele-bachmann-rick-santorum-slavery-families?page=0,0) can trace no direct line between slavery and the state of the modern black family, as the breaking up of families was not as common as was once assumed and black families strengthened (i.e. became more two-parent) for several generations before deteriorating. Contemporary understanding of the problem pins the blame squarely on the welfare policies of the Great Society that perversely encouraged black men to live outside of the home so black women could collect.
That sounds rather incomplete as an explanation. Doesn't address why (in some regions) black families are so much more fragmented than, say, Appalachian white families. After all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown? Or do they fragment with less result?

Like I said, incomplete.

I'm not one to invoke white guilt, but buying and selling mothers, fathers, sons and daughters for centuries seems like the sort of thing that might have an impact on the family unit. That's not statistics, that's common sense.

Greyblades

04-18-2012, 21:30

TAfter all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown? Just being clear, do these percentage take into account the higher population of white people in america overall?

Major Robert Dump

04-18-2012, 22:30

Check out the videos o Eric Holder going before committee in 2010 for the new hate crime laws, and upon being asked how and when it would be applied in identical cases of blck on white crime, his response was something to the effect of "we are only going to pursue cases where the victims belong to a group that has historically been oppressed."

I get it. Very well, actually. And it's retarded.

Lemur

04-19-2012, 00:36

Just being clear, do these percentage take into account the higher population of white people in america overall?
Actually, my statistics appear to be out-of-date anyway. Supposedly there are now more black Americans than white Americans on welfare (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_race_percentage_for_welfare_recipients). My bad. In my defense, I can only say that there used to be more whites on welfare than any other ethnicity. I expect some combination of Clinton's welfare reform and the recent mega-recession changed that fact.

PanzerJaeger

04-19-2012, 05:27

That sounds rather incomplete as an explanation. Doesn't address why (in some regions) black families are so much more fragmented than, say, Appalachian white families. After all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown? Or do they fragment with less result?

Like I said, incomplete.

I'm not one to invoke white guilt, but buying and selling mothers, fathers, sons and daughters for centuries seems like the sort of thing that might have an impact on the family unit. That's not statistics, that's common sense.

It may be common sense, but it does not actually make sense when the historical statistics on black family creation are examined. In order to convincingly hypothesize a link between slavery and the poor state of the black family unit today, one would expect to see a steady, or at least a steadily trending, rise in the percentage of single parent families from that era to today as the effects of the family breakups compounded and became normative. Instead, the data shows that slavery was not all that damaging to the black family and that the percentage of single parent families decreased dramatically for multiple generations until the sudden reversal that began in the '70s. Why would the existence of slavery more than a century before cause a sudden and rapid deterioration of the black family when it seemingly had no effect on earlier generations that were chronologically closer to the institution?

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

a completely inoffensive name

04-19-2012, 05:51

Sasaki Kojiro

04-19-2012, 06:21

sometimes "families" are accidental...sometimes people are teenagers...

a completely inoffensive name

04-19-2012, 06:44

sometimes "families" are accidental...sometimes people are teenagers...

But what came first, the high percentage of pregnant teenagers or the breakdown in black culture that set the stage for a higher percentage of teenagers to become pregnant.

Centurion1

04-19-2012, 07:18

ask antonio cromartie

Major Robert Dump

04-19-2012, 09:03

I am having a hard time believing that a welfare check is a big enough incentive to ward off people falling in love with each other and forming families.

Maybe I just don't know anything about people.

You can fall in love and start a family just fine without getting married, which is exactly what happened, so there is no official record of the a dad in the picture, and this "dad" disappears during social worker visits.

You think it is a myth, I have an entire step family of idiots who have been doing this for 2 generations and they openly admit that they have no incentive to get married. In fact, the "dads" actually avoid signing the birth certificates for this same reason, which is kind of funny because with the moms blinded by greed for their benefits they don't see that this screws them out of child support in the future....

If poor white trash will do it then poor black trash is doing it, too. Without the marriage contract the relationship becomes a drift-in and drift-out again arrangement.

Lack of an able bodied male increases benefits, as did each child. In the 1980s a single mom of 5 could make a middle class salary without raising a finger, and got food stamps and WIC on top of that.

I'd be curious to see numbers on two-parent signed birth certificates these days.

Strike For The South

04-19-2012, 16:09

It may be common sense, but it does not actually make sense when the historical statistics on black family creation are examined. In order to convincingly hypothesize a link between slavery and the poor state of the black family unit today, one would expect to see a steady, or at least a steadily trending, rise in the percentage of single parent families from that era to today as the effects of the family breakups compounded and became normative. Instead, the data shows that slavery was not all that damaging to the black family and that the percentage of single parent families decreased dramatically for multiple generations until the sudden reversal that began in the '70s. Why would the existence of slavery more than a century before cause a sudden and rapid deterioration of the black family when it seemingly had no effect on earlier generations that were chronologically closer to the institution?

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

Could it not be a combonation of both?

ask antonio cromartie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpSwaVclOgU

Ironside

04-19-2012, 20:43

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

Doesn't really hold up outside the US.
A more generous welfare net, more focus on independant women and less focus on marriage, yet there's no simular breakdown in the Scandinavian countries.

It might have exacerbated the problem, but it's not a root cause.

Crazed Rabbit

04-20-2012, 14:36

We were talking about Zimmerman, right?

Turns out he did have a bloody head - http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

In other news, charges will be filed and there will be a trial. Good. That's how this is supposed to work.

No. Just because you can file charges doesn't mean you should. In this instance trying to get second degree murder is ridiculous. Overcharging because of public pressure is the exact opposite of what should happen.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/04/13/how-not-to-draft-a-probable-cause-affidavit/
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14/zimmerman-anatomy-of-an-deficient-probable-cause-affidavit/

CR

Lemur

04-20-2012, 15:14

No. Just because you can file charges doesn't mean you should.
So Florida continues to demonstrate how not to do criminal justice, big surprise. However, both of the legal blogs you link suggest that Zimemrman should be charged, just charged better.

I'm curious, do you think Zimmerman should not face trial?

Crazed Rabbit

04-20-2012, 15:52

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2012, 16:03

I'm iffy on the trial. I don't think a person should be charged unless you think beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty. So, I don't really think he should face a trial, because from what I know about the case he's not guilty of anything (including manslaughter) beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't see where they said Zimmerman should be charged, only that he could have been charged better.

CR

Surely a person can be charged by police/DA on a reasonable doubt CR, then it is a matter of there being convicted or discharged on the reasonable doubt of the presiding judge or jury.

otherwise we would hardly charge anyone these days.

Vladimir

04-20-2012, 16:03

I'm iffy on the trial. I don't think a person should be charged unless you think beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty. So, I don't really think he should face a trial, because from what I know about the case he's not guilty of anything (including manslaughter) beyond a reasonable doubt.
CR

Absolutely not. Reasonable doubt never should affect your decision to make an arrest and file charges. That's not how the criminal justice system works. Courts do that.

Crazed Rabbit

04-20-2012, 16:13

Prosecutors are supposed to use discretion in who they bring to trial.

CR

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2012, 16:17

Prosecutors are supposed to use discretion in who they bring to trial.

CR

Well clearly in this case Zimmerman should have been brought before a judge.

Lemur

04-20-2012, 16:56

I don't think a person should be charged unless you think beyond a reasonable doubt he's guilty.
Isn't that the criteria for conviction? Surely messy, confusing cases can and should go to trial. That's the point, no? Let everybody lay out their witnesses and evidence, and try to get down to the truth, or as close as we can get.

I don't see where they said Zimmerman should be charged, only that he could have been charged better.
Exemplum gratum:

None of this is to say I think George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime for the incident that led to Trayvon Martin’s death, nor is it to say that the state may not possess sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of some crime at a trial. In fact, I am highly disturbed by Zimmerman’s behavior and Martin’s death.

Vladimir

04-20-2012, 17:58

Another issue is that if they did overcharge Zimmerman it will make it more difficult to convict him. I'm not sure if people can be convicted for lesser crimes, like manslaughter, in Florida. Even if they could, overcharging works in Zimmerman's favor and satisfies the populace.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2012, 18:37

Oh look, a bloody head.

Lemur

04-20-2012, 19:06

Oh look, a bloody head.
As I have said repeatedly, a confusing case. But a trial is the best chance to get to the bottom of it, even though the original police and prosecutor conduct may doom any chance of finding the truth. And even if the new prosecutor has mishandled the probable cause affidavit. Hell, even if every person in every step mishandles everything, I challenge my fellow Orgahs to come up with a better scenario than a trial for sorting this mess out.

rvg

04-20-2012, 19:09

My biggest concern about charges against Zimmerman is that they seem to have been brought on purely for the satisfaction of the mob. That kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Major Robert Dump

04-21-2012, 05:17

Whacker

04-21-2012, 07:43

For the last several days the prosecution has said they were going to keep him from getting bail with their spectacular case. The best they did today was put a detective on the stand who said "I don't know" a spectacular amount of times. Surely they can do better than this.

If they could have, they would. To me, this is clearly a case that has extreme political motivations, and the prosecutors are being pushed to move forward with whatever they have. As you pointed out, it looks pretty weak so far.

Whacker

04-21-2012, 07:52

As I have said repeatedly, a confusing case. But a trial is the best chance to get to the bottom of it, even though the original police and prosecutor conduct may doom any chance of finding the truth. And even if the new prosecutor has mishandled the probable cause affidavit. Hell, even if every person in every step mishandles everything, I challenge my fellow Orgahs to come up with a better scenario than a trial for sorting this mess out.

It depends. Someone with a US legal background can correct me, but my understanding is that 1. the prosecutors office does have discretion on what it takes to trial, and 2. in order to actually take something to trial, the prosecution has to have a pretty damn good understanding of the situation, a very solid amount of evidence, which in turn points toward the accused being guilty.

I am somewhat in agreement with your statement and somewhat not, based on how I am interpreting what you said. A trial is not the proper venue for the prosecution to determine "facts", as they see it. The whole point of pre-trial preparation is to have all one's ducks in a row and a firm grasp of how they are going to proceed with the court proceedings. The purpose of the actual trial itself is so that one may be judged by a panel of their peers.

The fact that this does not appear to be going well for the prosecution thus far is telling in a few ways. It could be one of or a combination of mishandling by the police, mishandling by the prosecutor's office, or a general lack of real, actual evidence with which to proceed. Whatever comes out of this, it certainly is seeming to me that we may never know the actual truth and circumstances of what happened that night.

Crazed Rabbit

04-21-2012, 18:37

Isn't that the criteria for conviction? Surely messy, confusing cases can and should go to trial. That's the point, no? Let everybody lay out their witnesses and evidence, and try to get down to the truth, or as close as we can get.

I do not think it should be that way. If the investigators do not think the person they're charging is definitively guilty, they shouldn't charge them. To have a case where you do not know what has happened after a thorough investigation does not mean you should basically toss it up into the whim of a jury - a jury that prosecutors speak to as if they are certain of a person's guilt. Doing that is an abdication of responsibility, and tossing a possibly innocent person into jail.

EDIT: To expand - the attitude of a prosecutor who does this is necessarily "I don't know if this man is guilty or innocent, but I'm going to try my hardest to get him convicted and sent to jail". Is that right?

Exemplum gratum:

None of this is to say I think George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime for the incident that led to Trayvon Martin’s death, nor is it to say that the state may not possess sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of some crime at a trial. In fact, I am highly disturbed by Zimmerman’s behavior and Martin’s death.

That seems to correspond with what I wrote - they suggested that he could be charged better, not that he should be. Being "disturbed by" does not equal "he should be charged".

CR

Vladimir

04-23-2012, 13:25

I do not think it should be that way. If the investigators do not think the person they're charging is definitively guilty, they shouldn't charge them. To have a case where you do not know what has happened after a thorough investigation does not mean you should basically toss it up into the whim of a jury - a jury that prosecutors speak to as if they are certain of a person's guilt. Doing that is an abdication of responsibility, and tossing a possibly innocent person into jail.

CR

And that's why your ideas about the U.S. legal system are fundamentally flawed. You're basing them on personal opinion. Part of it is what's called the NCIS mindset: People see a lot of fictitious but really cool forensic science on TV and think that's how the world works. Law enforcement issues are qualitative and bounded by certain laws, which, by themselves, can be fundamentally flawed due to language and the qualities of those who wrote them. The "whim of a jury," is one of the best tools in the legal system. A prosecutor doesn't need to be convinced of a person's guilt, they only need to have an idea of how likely a conviction is. How much time do you think they have?

Cops should file all charges they think are appropriate (also known as doing their job), defendants should get the lesser ones dropped, and prosecutors should try to convict on the remainder. For example: It is entirely reasonable for a dozen charges to be filed after a high speed chase even if "Failure to indicate a lane change" is dropped.

drone

04-23-2012, 22:04

It's probably incredibly racist of me, but I just get the feeling there is going to be a riot at the end of all this. The media is going to hype it up, the usual suspects will come out on both sides with ridiculous claims and baiting, and then the lack of evidence and a poor performance by the prosecutor will doom the case. It's been 20 years and the economy has tanked. :shrug:

Luckiest person in the world: Judge Recksiedler.

a completely inoffensive name

04-24-2012, 08:29

"That's the way it is" is not a reasonable defense for a system that's cumbersone, prone to unjust prosecution (and even persecution), and costs everyone a lot of money and time (and more importantly--dignity).

I never thought I would say this but....Vladimir is right and I don't think (at least from my interpretation) he is saying "that's the way it is".

The point is that there is a time and place to presume innocence, which is the courthouse when the jury is deliberating. Prosecutors job is to prosecute and the defendants job is to defend. The only thing that needs to be looked at regarding excessive charges brought against citizens is the disclosure of said charges publicly during the trial and after if the defendant is found innocent.

a completely inoffensive name

04-24-2012, 09:24

Right, so who's job is it to make sure that you're not wasting everyone's time?
No body, because such a job would be terrible. The last thing you need in a justice system is someone who is trying to rush everyone's due process because there is a line outside the door.

A prosecutor is allowed (and even encouraged) to treat the trial as a forgeone conclusion. To treat the defendant as someone who is most certainly guilty. When you throw people in front a jury with minimal evidence, sometimes a zealous prosecution is enough. At the very least, the state should do its best to ensure that you don't send someone into that situation until there is as close to 100% certainty as possible that you're not wasting everyone's time or sending someone innocent to get damned by his peers.

Do you get it? When the police charge everyone in the room and let the jury sort it out, and the prosecutor really wants to get his convictions, and all the poorest get is an overworked and underpaid public defender... well uh, that's pretty silly. There's no accountability in there. Its like the old saying 'Kill em all and let god sort em out."

Sad fact is that presumption of innocence doesn't really exist any more (if it ever did). Only a great lawyer will get you a fair trial, and those cost money.

I'm not saying tear down the system because, honestly, I can't think of a reasonable alternative. But you're out-of-your-mind crazy if you think that our system is even remotely clear of injustice.

You are not arguing against the system, you are arguing against the jury. Crappy jury's fall for hyperbole and not substance, much in the same way that crappy citizens fall for hyperbole from politicians. Problem stems from humans not the system.

Vladimir

04-24-2012, 13:38

I never thought I would say this but....Vladimir is right and I don't think (at least from my interpretation) he is saying "that's the way it is".

The point is that there is a time and place to presume innocence, which is the courthouse when the jury is deliberating. Prosecutors job is to prosecute and the defendants job is to defend. The only thing that needs to be looked at regarding excessive charges brought against citizens is the disclosure of said charges publicly during the trial and after if the defendant is found innocent.

Thanks! :bow:

It's not about being right, just defining the structure of a system in an imperfect world. People get away with breaking a lot of laws at every level. It could be as simple as being polite and respectful to gross incompetence on the part of the prosecutor. Whatever. :shrug: Bring me a better alternative. Things get better all the time.

Things work wonderfully well as long as everyone does their job well.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-26-2012, 17:29

Wow, some actual journalism!

(Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

By June 2011, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from a loose pit bull to a wave of robberies that rattled the community, called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime.

Few of his closest neighbors knew he carried a gun - until two months ago.

On February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in what Zimmerman says was self-defense. The furor that ensued has consumed the country and prompted a re-examination of guns, race and self-defense laws enacted in nearly half the United States.

During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.

But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.

Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

"MIXED" HOUSEHOLD

George Michael Zimmerman was born in 1983 to Robert and Gladys Zimmerman, the third of four children. Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District.

Robert and Gladys met in January 1975, when George Mesa brought along his army buddy to his sister's birthday party. She was visiting from Peru, on vacation from her job there as a physical education teacher. Robert was a Baptist, Gladys was Catholic. They soon married, in a Catholic ceremony in Alexandria, and moved to nearby Manassas.

Gladys came to lead a small but growing Catholic Hispanic enclave within the All Saints Catholic Church parish in the late 1970s, where she was involved in the church's outreach programs. Gladys would bring young George along with her on "home visits" to poor families, said a family friend, Teresa Post.

"It was part of their upbringing to know that there are people in need, people more in need than themselves," said Post, a Peruvian immigrant who lived with the Zimmermans for a time.

Post recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and Dawn. "It wasn't only white or only Hispanic or only black - it was mixed," she said.

Zimmerman's maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since 1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman's childhood. For several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.

"They were part of the household for years, until they were old enough to be on their own," Post said.

Zimmerman served as an altar boy at All Saints from age 7 to 17, church members said.

"He wasn't the type where, you know, 'I'm being forced to do this,' and a dragging-his-feet Catholic," said Sandra Vega, who went to high school with George and his siblings. "He was an altar boy for years, and then worked in the rectory too. He has a really good heart."

George grew up bilingual, and by age 10 he was often called to the Haydon Elementary School principal's office to act as a translator between administrators and immigrant parents. At 14 he became obsessed with becoming a Marine, a relative said, joining the after-school ROTC program at Grace E. Metz Middle School and polishing his boots by night. At 15, he worked three part-time jobs - in a Mexican restaurant, for the rectory, and washing cars - on nights and weekends, to save up for a car.

After graduating from Osbourn High School in 2001, Zimmerman moved to Lake Mary, Florida, a town neighboring Sanford. His parents purchased a retirement home there in 2002, in part to bring Cristina, who suffers from arthritis, to a warmer climate.

YOUNG INSURANCE AGENT

On his own at 18, George got a job at an insurance agency and began to take classes at night to earn a license to sell insurance. He grew friendly with a real estate agent named Lee Ann Benjamin, who shared office space in the building, and later her husband, John Donnelly, a Sanford attorney.

"George impressed me right off the bat as just a real go-getter," Donnelly said. "He was working days and taking all these classes at night, passing all the insurance classes, not just for home insurance, but auto insurance and everything. He wanted to open his own office - and he did."

In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with an African-American friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office, Donnelly said.

Then came 2005, and a series of troubles. Zimmerman's business failed, he was arrested, and he broke off an engagement with a woman who filed a restraining order against him.

That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.

In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.

In 2007 he married Shellie Dean, a licensed cosmetologist, and in 2009 the couple rented a townhouse in the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman had bounced from job to job for a couple of years, working at a car dealership and a mortgage company. At times, according to testimony from Shellie at a bond hearing for Zimmerman last week, the couple filed for unemployment benefits.

Zimmerman enrolled in Seminole State College in 2009, and in December 2011 he was permitted to participate in a school graduation ceremony, despite being a course credit shy of his associate's degree in criminal justice. Zimmerman was completing that course credit when the shooting occurred.

On March 22, nearly a month after the shooting and with the controversy by then swirling nationwide, the school issued a press release saying it was taking the "unusual, but necessary" step of withdrawing Zimmerman's enrollment, citing "the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."

A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR

By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263 town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data.

One morning in July 2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman's front porch and stole a bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the bicycle was not recovered.

But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse.

On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom, and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.

"I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors.

Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police.

After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.

"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week."

In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.

"PLEASE CONTACT OUR CAPTAIN"

Police had advised Bertalan to get a dog. She and her husband decided to move out instead, and left two days before the shooting. Zimmerman took the advice.

"He'd already had a mutt that he walked around the neighborhood every night - man, he loved that dog - but after that home invasion he also got a Rottweiler," said Jorge Rodriguez, a friend and neighbor of the Zimmermans.

Around the same time, Zimmerman also gave Rodriguez and his wife, Audria, his contact information, so they could reach him day or night. Rodriguez showed the index card to Reuters. In neat cursive was a list of George and Shellie's home number and cell phones, as well as their emails.

Less than two weeks later, another Twin Lakes home was burglarized, police reports show. Two weeks after that, a home under construction was vandalized.

The Retreat at Twin Lakes e-newsletter for February 2012 noted: "The Sanford PD has announced an increased patrol within our neighborhood ... during peak crime hours.

"If you've been a victim of a crime in the community, after calling police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman."

EMMANUEL BURGESS - SETTING THE STAGE

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.

Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.

Three days after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman's grandmother was hospitalized for an infection, and the following week his father was also admitted for a heart condition. Zimmerman spent a number of those nights on a hospital room couch.

Ten days after his father was hospitalized, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police.

"We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," Zimmerman said, as Trayvon Martin returned home from the store.

The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.

This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.

"These assholes," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."

After the phone call ended, several minutes passed when the movements of Zimmerman and Martin remain a mystery.

Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Vladimir

04-26-2012, 18:24

That article is inherently racist. All crime is racially proportional. Half of those break-ins must have been committed by white people.

rvg

04-26-2012, 18:28

That article is inherently racist. All crime is racially proportional. Half of those break-ins must have been committed by white people.
Black people need to understand that they are not allowed to exceed their crime quota. It is racist of them to commit more crimes than white people per capita.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-29-2012, 21:48

Ugh, the latest on this story a white guy getting beaten up on his front porch by some black people in mobile. Some newspapers complacently passed on the claim by one of his relatives that one of the mob said "now that's justice for trayvon" as they left :rolleyes: though thankfully it's gotten much less coverage. Turns out it's a longstanding argument and the guy has a history of threatening the kids in the neighborhood with kitchen knives etc and the incident has nothing to do with the trayvon case.Also:

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/83/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/

"People living in the neighborhood woke up to find racist flyers littering their lawns.

The flyers are actually an Aryan newsletter from 3 years ago. Police believe white supremacists are trying to take advantage of the racialy charged atmosphere to stir up more bad feelings."

Be on the lookout for bogus newstories on this kind of thing

Lemur

05-14-2012, 18:31

Looks like Derbyshire found a new gig: (http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-who-are-we-the-dissident-right)

White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group. [...]

Conservatism, Inc. or otherwise, is a white people's movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.

Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain't too many raisins in that bun. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. (Hey, Alex!)

Strike For The South

05-14-2012, 18:37

Lemur

05-14-2012, 18:44

This man is wrong.
Oh, I think everyone will find something to disagree with in his latest.

Vladimir

05-14-2012, 18:49

Thought this was an update. :shrug:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-14-2012, 18:58

This man is wrong.

Yes - because he makes "white Europeans" out to be a monolythic. They aren't.

You know, I thought his original contentious piece was meant to be ironic - but I suppose not.

He's just a crusty old racist.

Strike For The South

05-14-2012, 19:15

Yes - because he makes "white Europeans" out to be a monolythic. They aren't.

You know, I thought his original contentious piece was meant to be ironic - but I suppose not.

He's just a crusty old racist.

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

Vladimir

05-14-2012, 19:18

What's Protastents precious?

Do you boil them, mash them, or put them in a stew?

Ironside

05-14-2012, 19:41

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

Psh, the best conservatives was the Chinese.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-14-2012, 19:59

So you just narrow the scope to white Northern European Protastents?

No - that was exactly my point - good Greek or Roman, or Florentine governance does not reflect on England, Germany or even Spain.

It is very difficult, now, to say what the Aztecs or Mayans might have produced after another 500 years, likewise the Zulus.

The Euroasian Continent has produced a succession of great civilisations, what has set us apart and given us a leg up is that we have each time learned from our neighbours and predecessors. In Europe this has been because first Greece and then the Church endured essentially intact while other civilisations rose and fell. In Asia this was because China never endured the sort of social collapse pretty much everywhere else has in the last 2,000 years at some point.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-14-2012, 20:45

I like his other quote there:

I’m starting to favor a Constitutional Amendment to the effect that anyone saying in print or pixels that such-and-such a notion has been “discredited” should be obliged to tell us by whom the discrediting was done, when, where, with what methodology, and the specific informed criticism that countered it.

People often use "discredited" as a way to avoid having to provide arguments or evidence, it's a tempting out. But that describes his style of writing very well, "of course some blots on the record, "net-net", etc. He made his "main" subject the semantics of what to call his area of the right, I wonder if that was so that he could make the comments about race casually instead of as the focus of the article, where he would have to go in depth. Although more likely he believes that those things have been argued to death already, which the probably have been in the context of an insular political group.

It is very difficult, now, to say what the Aztecs or Mayans might have produced after another 500 years, likewise the Zulus.

Yes, but it's even harder to say that they would have produced something. It's possible that civilizations simply stabilize if they are isolated. China tended towards stability instead of growth and change too.

But I'm not sure what his argument is, don't think he makes one. He just says that the white European societies have done well and sub-saharan africa hasn't.

PanzerJaeger

05-15-2012, 02:44

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

Whacker

05-15-2012, 03:07

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

Because they're often next to impossible to separate. Depends on how broad of brush you use to paint the "culture" picture, because it could be argued that most "cultures" are limited to a specific racial group or sub-group. Counter-examples would include the "New Orleans" culture, which is by definition based on the contributions but a number of wildly different racial (and cultural) parental entities.

Vladimir

05-15-2012, 03:16

Why is the concept of cultural superiority so often mixed with racial superiority?

Tribalism. It's easier.

Whacker

05-15-2012, 03:31

Tribalism. It's easier.

Magic people? Voodoo people?

Xiahou

05-16-2012, 00:22

I came across this article (http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html) today:
A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
So, does this shoot down the rest of the initial knee-jerk storyline yet? Is there anything left?

We were told this was a malicious, premeditated murder by a racist man with a grudge. Since then, we've learned he's not a racist and is in fact a minority himself. And he was in fact assaulted at some point during the altercation- bolstering his self-defense claims.

Vladimir

05-16-2012, 13:06

I came across this article (http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html) today:
So, does this shoot down the rest of the initial knee-jerk storyline yet? Is there anything left?

We were told this was a malicious, premeditated murder by a racist man with a grudge. Since then, we've learned he's not a racist and is in fact a minority himself. And he was in fact assaulted at some point during the altercation- bolstering his self-defense claims.

No. A black person was still killed by a non-black person so it's still racially motivated.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-16-2012, 13:35

No. A black person was still killed by a non-black person so it's still racially motivated.

I'm sorry - I have to pick you up on your faulty logic, it's only recaially motivated if he was shot because he was black.

Does mister Zimmerman identify as a minority? The name would suggest not, it perhaps worth wondering if he changed it - or if his dad was just Germanic.

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

Sir Moody

05-16-2012, 14:35

not just that but the fact he was diagnosed a day later does not suggest he was injured during the attack - just that he was injured before being diagnosed... say while in Police custody... might explain why they almost didn't prosecute him...

wasn't there a Police report that stated he wasn't injured during the incident?

Lemur

05-16-2012, 14:55

Not to interrupt anyone's talking points, but this is generally why we have trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial).

Sasaki Kojiro

05-16-2012, 16:27

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

But Zimmerman wasn't the one who attacked. Forget the media madness about him being a bloodthirsty gunman.

not just that but the fact he was diagnosed a day later does not suggest he was injured during the attack - just that he was injured before being diagnosed... say while in Police custody... might explain why they almost didn't prosecute him...

wasn't there a Police report that stated he wasn't injured during the incident?

:dizzy2:

The found him like that at the scene. Martins knuckles were scuffed up too iirc. You can see the bloody head etc in the video of him being taken into the police station.

http://i48.tinypic.com/5oa7ly.jpg

Xiahou

05-16-2012, 18:03

Not to interrupt anyone's talking points, but this is generally why we have trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial).Yes. But now it will be a trial irrevocably tainted by sensationalist, likely false, media coverage. That's not cool.

Honestly, it's beginning to look more and more like the local DA was right not to pursue the case. With all the information that's coming in, it's looking like a lost cause for the prosecution. If they took a look at the available information and decided not to waste resources taking the case to a trial that they think they'd lose, is that wrong?

Vladimir

05-16-2012, 19:07

I'm sorry - I have to pick you up on your faulty logic, it's only recaially motivated if he was shot because he was black.

Does mister Zimmerman identify as a minority? The name would suggest not, it perhaps worth wondering if he changed it - or if his dad was just Germanic.

Either way, that Martin struck him does not prove Martin attacked him, merely that there was an altercation and Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. Indeed, if there are people who argue that Zimmerman would have been within his rights to shoot Martin if attakced, surely then Martin was within his rights to strike Zimmerman if, indeed, he was the one attacked.

Sorry. Being a bit cheeky. I'm referring to the perception of others'.

Sir Moody

05-16-2012, 21:15

Sasaki Kojiro

05-16-2012, 21:30

well clearly he was injured then ill retract my previous statement...

however it doesn't mean he didn't start the fight - say he tried to stop the kid by restraining him only to get beaten down - that wouldn't be self defence since restraining someone is assault...

the only way it would be self defence is if Martin attacked him without provocation

Eh, grabbing someone by the arm doesn't justify that kind of beat down. "restraining someone is assault" ?? Martin had no injuries on him other than broken skin on his knuckles.

Everything we do know about zimmerman:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Paints a different picture than the main media story.

We wouldn't even be saying "Well, we don't know for sure that he didn't assault martin first..." if it hadn't been reported like it was.

I just wonder how much the initial story will stick, since it seems unlikely that the pictures of the bloody head etc will get nearly as much attention.

Lemur

05-16-2012, 22:31

Honestly, it's beginning to look more and more like the local DA was right not to pursue the case. With all the information that's coming in, it's looking like a lost cause for the prosecution. If they took a look at the available information and decided not to waste resources taking the case to a trial that they think they'd lose, is that wrong?
I don't see how declaring him innocent (after reading some media reports) is any better than declaring him guilty (after reading some media reports). Seems like you're indulging in the exact thing you're condemning, really.

To repeat myself: Zimmerman deserves his day in court. That is all.

Sir Moody

05-16-2012, 22:41

while I don't know the specifics of US law, under UK law even grabbing an arm is assault if you dont have provocation (as is spitting and pushing) of course the police wont do anything apart from warn the offender...

also remember Martin died - bruises require time to develop and any bruises on Martin would be very difficult to identify since they wouldn't have had that time

we also only have Zimmerman's side of the fight - its quite possible that Martin lashed out at someone attacking him - one punch with enough force to the nose could easily break it and bruise both eyes - Zimmerman could have fallen down and then hit his head on the curb causing the injuries to the back of his head... its unlikely simply because there's 2 gashes on the back of his head but its possible...

basically we are never going to know either way and Zimmerman should get off over reasonable doubt - the media have tainted this so badly (like several cases over here) that its near impossible to know for sure what happened

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-16-2012, 23:01

Eh, grabbing someone by the arm doesn't justify that kind of beat down. "restraining someone is assault" ?? Martin had no injuries on him other than broken skin on his knuckles.

Everything we do know about zimmerman:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Paints a different picture than the main media story.

We wouldn't even be saying "Well, we don't know for sure that he didn't assault martin first..." if it hadn't been reported like it was.

I just wonder how much the initial story will stick, since it seems unlikely that the pictures of the bloody head etc will get nearly as much attention.

Restraining someone is assault, and battery unless the jurisdiction Zimmerman lives in has redefined the 18th century case law.

So there you go.

Grabbing someone does not merit being repeatedly beaten, but beating someone with your fists does not merit being shot and killed.

Whacker

05-16-2012, 23:37

Grabbing someone does not merit being repeatedly beaten, but beating someone with your fists does not merit being shot and killed.

If you are in fear for your life from a very real and capable threat, then you can legally use lethal force under certain circumstances and in certain states/areas. I would tend to agree that "grabbing" someone wouldn't merit a "repeated beating", but iirc grabbing generally does fall under assault in the eyes of the law, and generally one may defend themselves to a reasonable extent. Punching someone to break their nose, stun them, then run is one thing. Sitting on top of someone's chest and pounding their head into the pavement is another entirely.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 00:01

If you are in fear for your life from a very real and capable threat, then you can legally use lethal force under certain circumstances and in certain states/areas. I would tend to agree that "grabbing" someone wouldn't merit a "repeated beating", but iirc grabbing generally does fall under assault in the eyes of the law, and generally one may defend themselves to a reasonable extent. Punching someone to break their nose, stun them, then run is one thing. Sitting on top of someone's chest and pounding their head into the pavement is another entirely.

So is shooting someone.

If Zimmerman had accosted Martin and Martin had beaten him down he's be up for assault and battery now, and we'd be having a different discussion. The fact is, however, that what actually happened is a man responded to being beaten down be shooting the other guy dead and it still looks like he approached Martin rather than, say, called the cops.

Given that we have no evidence Martin was in the process of committing a crime when Zimmerman approached him we have to wonder what was going through his head prior to the shooting.

Whacker

05-17-2012, 00:12

So is shooting someone.

If Zimmerman had accosted Martin and Martin had beaten him down he's be up for assault and battery now, and we'd be having a different discussion. The fact is, however, that what actually happened is a man responded to being beaten down be shooting the other guy dead and it still looks like he approached Martin rather than, say, called the cops.

Given that we have no evidence Martin was in the process of committing a crime when Zimmerman approached him we have to wonder what was going through his head prior to the shooting.

The last part doesn't hold water legally, I am pretty sure. Simply attempting to talk to someone isn't an aggressive action. Even walking after someone attempting to engage them to talk or discuss isn't either. Attempting to bar someone's way or restraining them is another thing entirely though. The other factor is Zimmerman's choice of language. I'd very much like to hear his version of the conversation when this all occurred.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 00:43

The last part doesn't hold water legally, I am pretty sure. Simply attempting to talk to someone isn't an aggressive action. Even walking after someone attempting to engage them to talk or discuss isn't either. Attempting to bar someone's way or restraining them is another thing entirely though. The other factor is Zimmerman's choice of language. I'd very much like to hear his version of the conversation when this all occurred.

We obviously don't have enough information - but the initial failure to try the case is not acceptable given that an unarmed man died whilst just walking the streets. If he had invaded Zimmerman's home things would be different.

Xiahou

05-17-2012, 00:58

I don't see how declaring him innocent (after reading some media reports) is any better than declaring him guilty (after reading some media reports). Seems like you're indulging in the exact thing you're condemning, really.

To repeat myself: Zimmerman deserves his day in court. That is all.I haven't declared him innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty. And I think proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a tall order. Is it unreasonable to ask if it's possible that the police and DA's office- the people that actually were on the scene -took a look at the situation and the evidence and concluded that the chances of conviction were so slim that it would be a waste of taxpayer funds?

Can we acknowledge the possibility that he wasn't charged for good reason instead of because of corruption or incompetence? The reason he finally was charged was pretty obviously due to political pressure.

Here's Alan Dershowitz calling the arrest affidavit "unethical and irresponsible":
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i4fr5QwG63M#!

Whacker

05-17-2012, 03:10

I haven't declared him innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty. And I think proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a tall order. Is it unreasonable to ask if it's possible that the police and DA's office- the people that actually were on the scene -took a look at the situation and the evidence and concluded that the chances of conviction were so slim that it would be a waste of taxpayer funds.

Can we acknowledge the possibility that he wasn't charged for good reason instead of because of corruption or incompetence? The reason he finally was charged was pretty obviously due to political pressure.

Here's Alan Dershowitz calling the arrest affidavit "unethical and irresponsible":
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i4fr5QwG63M#!

Oh, do shut up, and stop trying to derail the race baiter's agenda. You silly person!

Lemur

05-17-2012, 14:09

Gents, by stating there should be no trial, you are effectively declaring the defendant's innocence. Based on what you have heard or read in the dreaded, despised media. Get a grip.

There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.

rvg

05-17-2012, 14:18

Gents, by stating there should be no trial, you are effectively declaring the defendant's innocence. Based on what you have heard or read in the dreaded, despised media. Get a grip.

There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.

The problem is that the case was opened for the sole reason of pleasing the lynch mob.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 14:26

The problem is that the case was opened for the sole reason of pleasing the lynch mob.

The reason their is a lynch mob is because of the failure to prosecute - in fact I would go so far as to say that the dubious failure to bring charges has most harmed Zimmerman.

Xiahou

05-17-2012, 14:52

Gents, by stating there should be no trial, you are effectively declaring the defendant's innocence. Based on what you have heard or read in the dreaded, despised media. Get a grip. Once more, I'm not declaring his innocence- you've got our justice system backwards. What I'm asking is if you think it's conceivable that the police/DA's office did not charge Zimmerman with good reason.

There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.So, is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion? If your answer is "yes", who determines that threshold? The police? The news media? Eric Holder?

Whacker

05-17-2012, 14:54

Gents, by stating there should be no trial, you are effectively declaring the defendant's innocence. Based on what you have heard or read in the dreaded, despised media. Get a grip.

Wrong.

I have stated that there should not be a trial *IF* the prosecutor's office determines that they cannot make a case. This is a simple fact, if you don't believe me go talk to your local district attorney and they will tell you how it works. With the current legal system in the US and the realization that there is, in the vast majority of cases, a massive backlog of legal workload at the government level. Put all of these together and one realizes why there is such an incentive for prosecutors to plead people out where possible, and only take absolutely surefire cases to court which there is a possibility of winning. Doing otherwise is not a good use of their time and resources, which are extremely scarce. You've repeatedly mentioned that the courts are where they sort things out, again this is false. The whole point of going to trial is that both sides have their facts, views, opinions, and arguments down pat and are reasonably self-assured of success. This is the whole point of the discovery process. The courtroom is where arguments are presented and the jury decides based on that. Bottom line, if the prosecution thinks or had thought that they have enough evidence that he was guilty and to convict him, then absolutely go ahead. If not, then no. It always has been and will remain my unshakeable belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to take an innocent man's freedom or life.

There is nothing controversial or remarkable about wanting the shooter of an unarmed man to have his day in court. If this was a case of justified self-defense, that is the venue. If this was manslaughter, reckless endangerment or something else, court is also the correct venue.

Completely agree, based on what I wrote above.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 15:28

So, is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion? If your answer is "yes", who determines that threshold? The police? The news media? Eric Holder?

Not in public - if he invades your home, then yes, perhaps a trial would not be warrented, provided you did not shoot him in the back.

rvg

05-17-2012, 15:30

Not in public - if he invades your home, then yes, perhaps a trial would not be warrented, provided you did not shoot him in the back.
But that's your personal opinion. Florida law isn't supposed to operate based on personal opinions.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 15:49

But that's your personal opinion. Florida law isn't supposed to operate based on personal opinions.

It's also a failry widely recognised Anglo-Saxon principle - that you have abetter legal defence if you didn't go looking for a fight.

Zimmerman was looking for something - and if he thought it was a thief he should have called the cops.

Here's a question to consider: If Martin was wailing on Zimmerman so hard how did Zimmerman shoot him?

Seems like maybe Martin beat him down then backed off and Zimmerman shot him.

Sir Moody

05-17-2012, 16:08

I just looked it up - Martin was shot at Intermediate range - which is Forensics speak for between a few inches and around 3 feet - basically point blank but not touching

Basically Zimmerman's account looks more and more likely with the only question being - who started it?

rvg

05-17-2012, 16:33

It's also a failry widely recognised Anglo-Saxon principle - that you have abetter legal defence if you didn't go looking for a fight.

Anglo-Saxon principles <> U.S. Laws.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 17:07

Anglo-Saxon principles <> U.S. Laws.

Only so long as those laws remain on US Statute books - repeal a law and it's back to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for you.

rvg

05-17-2012, 17:15

Only so long as those laws remain on US Statute books
Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

gaelic cowboy

05-17-2012, 17:18

Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

Dunno why your arguing against PVC here cos it doesnt have to be about Anglo-Saxon blah blah to cop that looking for a fight is not covered by any self defence law I ever heard of.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 17:35

Which they are. Which is why Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not apply.

Ugh.

Look - you have an Anglo-Saxon legal system, when trying this case one of the questions the Judge has to consider is the precedent when interpreting whether Zimmerman was acting in accordance with the law or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#States_of_the_United_States_.281775_on.29

Common Law is so pervasive that it was the US Supreme Court (in a Common Law judgement) that determined there was no Federal Common Law above State Commone Law.

So, when I talk about "Anglo-Saxon" principles I am talking about the bedrock of your legal system.

rvg

05-17-2012, 17:37

...looking for a fight is not covered by any self defence law I ever heard of...

Who says he was looking for a fight?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 17:43

Who says he was looking for a fight?

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

Vladimir

05-17-2012, 18:00

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

Oh dear Lord. He was walking back to the car, or was he? You're just as guilty of prejudging this case as the others are. Don't try skipping to the back page

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 18:09

Oh dear Lord. He was walking back to the car, or was he? You're just as guilty of prejudging this case as the others are. Don't try skipping to the back page

Why was he out of the car?

The intial story from the Police was more suspicious than subsequent versions - based on the initial story he should have been immidiately charged.

If he had been immidiately charged those charges might have been dropped by now, or not, the point is that failing to charge him has in every way made the situation worse.

rvg

05-17-2012, 18:21

He walked up to someone he didn't know whilst carrying a gun. I don't think he was trying to bum smokes.

This is speculation on your part with zero evidence.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 18:26

This is speculation on your part with zero evidence.

Which part?

rvg

05-17-2012, 18:28

Which part?

This:

...looking for a fight

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 19:18

This:

Then what was he looking for.

The alternative is that Martin decided to beat him up just for giggles, without provocation.

Far more likely he was provoked - even if his reaction was then completely unreasonable.

rvg

05-17-2012, 19:21

Then what was he looking for.
Whatever he said he was looking for. There's no proof to suspect otherwise.

The alternative is that Martin decided to beat him up just for giggles, without provocation.
Okay.

Xiahou

05-17-2012, 20:14

Basically Zimmerman's account looks more and more likely with the only question being - who started it? And more importantly, for anyone thinking of prosecuting the case... How on earth can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 20:46

And more importantly, for anyone thinking of prosecuting the case... How on earth can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it?

I would suggest by demonstrating Martin was not a sociopath.

If Martin has no history of unprovoked violent attacks then it seems highly unlikely he started it.

What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.

The burden of proof here actually is on Zimmerman, because he has to demonstrate that his manslaughter was not murder - he is not disputing having killed Martin, the question is whether that killing was justified and the law usually assumes it isn't.

rvg

05-17-2012, 21:02

I would suggest by demonstrating Martin was not a sociopath.
This won't mean anything.

If Martin has no history of unprovoked violent attacks then it seems highly unlikely he started it.
That would be true only if Zimmerman had a history of unprovoked attacks.

What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.
He said he was. That is sufficient.

The burden of proof here actually is on Zimmerman
Not in this country.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 21:10

He said he was. That is sufficient.

I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.

Zimmerman is clearly guilty of murder unless he can demonstrate self defence as a legal defence, that's the same in the US as elsewhere.

Frankly, I think he's probably guilty of whatever passes for manslaughter in Florida on the grounds of diminished responsibility and should probably get about five years.

rvg

05-17-2012, 21:18

I believe the Florida law says reasonable expectation - "I was scared" doesn't really qualify.

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

Lemur

05-17-2012, 21:27

you've got our justice system backwards.
It's true that we presume innocence, as is right and proper. However, when you have indisputably killed a stranger, the burden of proof starts to fall on you. You simply cannot kill another citizen and not face serious questions (most probably a trial).

What I'm asking is if you think it's conceivable that the police/DA's office did not charge Zimmerman with good reason.
All things are conceivable.

So, is there ever a case where one person can kill another in justifiable self-defense and not have to be charged with murder and go to trial in your opinion?
Who said anything about "murder"? There are many situations in which you can kill another human being and not be charged with murder. Some of them fall under OSHA rules, actually. But the idea that you can kill another human being and not be investigated thoroughly is offensive to many.

I have stated that there should not be a trial *IF* the prosecutor's office determines that they cannot make a case.
That's fair, but weren't you also stating earlier in the thread that there should be no charges or trial unless the evidence was crystal-clear? I'm on deadline, so no time to look back through the thread, but someone was arguing that unless guilt was 100% transparently clear, there should be no charges or trial. This seems dubious to me. What about confusing and murky cases? Should they never be tried?

Look, if I shoot a man, I will be investigated. I will also probably be charged with reckless endangerment, manslaughter, murder, or use of a fierarm while in violation of the Mann act while naked on a motorcycle and intoxicated. "Murder," as a legal concept, usually involves malice and/or premeditation. Just one option.

To go back to the question of when charges should not be filed, I'd say if there is a thorough investigation and the situation is both obvious and clearly self-defense, then charges should probably not be filed. I think the Florida case fails on the "thorough investigation" front. I could hazard some other guesses, based on what I've read, but haven't we done quite enough of that already?

The case is going to trial. Zimmerman and his defense team will have their fair say. I hope the jury is impartial and the judge fair.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 21:40

He was beaten up. It was more than reasonable for him to fear for his safety.

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.

The reason I say that is that I would think if Zimmerman shot Martin while he was being beaten he would have had to struggle to pull the weapon and must therefore have had defensive wounds which reflect that.

Unless, of course, he approached with the weapon drawn - in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.

rvg

05-17-2012, 23:07

I don't dissagree - but Martin was unarmed and it is by no means clear that he was justified in using lethal force.
Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

In particular, did Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his hands and arms - if not that means Martin pumelled him, Zimmerman took it and then shot him once he stopped.
That's what you think.

...in which case Martin would have been justified beating him to death, given that Zimmerman was presenting the threat of lethal force.
Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-17-2012, 23:47

Sure it is. If someone tries to beat me up while I'm packing heat, they deserve to die purely because they're so damn stupid. I'll be weeding out the gene pool.

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.

That's what you think.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.

Wait a second...so it's okay for Martin to kill Zimmerman, but not vice versa merely because of the method of killing? I don't think you have a problem with Zimmerman, I think you have a problem with guns.

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified.

Conversely, Martin had no weapon.

rvg

05-17-2012, 23:57

That depends on the context, and why they hit you, whether you were open carrying or not.
Not to me. Bang. I'm not about to depend on the benevolence of some hoodlum who found it fitting to start a brawl. Bang.

Aside from which - Martin did not deserve to die even for committing Common Assault and Battery.
In your opinion, perhaps not. It wasn't your call though.

I find you attitude distasteful in this regard.
That's quite alright.

I know a bit about having the crap beaten out of me , and I know about guns. Zimmerman presumably had it inside his jacket with the safety on, or he was brandishing it. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe he was able to reach inside his jacket and disengage the safety while being punched in the face; on the other if he had already drawn he was presenting a lethal threat.
Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

In all instances a handgun presents a lethal threat. If Zimmerman was brandishing the gun at Martin he was threatening to use lethal force. If Martin believed he was about to be shot then beating Zimmerman until he stopped moving would be legally justified. Conversely, Martin had no weapon.
Fists can also be lethal. That's no excuse.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-18-2012, 00:10

Why, he couldn't have taken a few steps backwards to put some distance between himself and Martin to safely pull out a gun?

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?

Whacker

05-18-2012, 00:12

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-18-2012, 00:40

You are an extremely naive person PVC. Almost as much as your are opinionated and judgmental. You've made more assumptions about what happened during the altercation that I can keep track of. Putting a few feet between someone else and yourself doesn't remotely mean the attack has ceased, or that mortal danger has passed.

I just love how you take every oppertunity to insult me.

You think I'm naive?

No - Martin could have beaten Zimmerman to death, but it was less likely than Martin being shot and killed. There are a plethora of problems with Zimmerman's story, but the biggest one is that he seems to claim that he followed Martin and then Martin spontaneously attacked him.

That doesn't add up.

As yet no convincing motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman has been brought forward other than Zimmerman starting an altercation and then Martin overreacting (or not, depending on where the gun was).

Being followed in the dark is creepy and that appears to have been what Zimmerman did, he followed Martin.

So far as I can see Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can prove that Martin represented a credible threat to his life, at the very least he is guilty of whatever you guys call voluntary manslaughter.

Just because Martin was still a threat does not mean Zimmerman's life was in immidiate danger - and the Police were already on their way by this point.

This case stinks - and it still looks the same as it ever did, there was a fight and one guy had a gun so the other guy went to the morgue.

Xiahou

05-18-2012, 00:43

What you actually have to prove though is that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.The burden is on the prosecution, not the defense. They would have to prove he was not in fear of his life.

Who said anything about "murder"?:inquisitive: .....that's what Zimmerman has been charged with- second degree murder (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-charged-murder-trayvon-martin-killing/story?id=16115469).

rvg

05-18-2012, 00:44

Then he's not in mortal danger, is he?
Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

I don't have a problem with guns per se, I have a problem with people like you being allowed to have them.
Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

A young man is dead because another man had a gun. Zimmerman himself said Martin went for his weapon before he shot him - that implies Zimmerman had it drawn.
Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman - he'd been out for munchies.
Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

Zimmerman was following him, and he had a gun - or are we disputing what the accused himself said, now?
And Martin attacked Zimmerman. And he was likely high...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

05-18-2012, 01:07

The burden is on the prosecution, not the defense. They would have to prove he was not in fear of his life.

No, that can't be right. The prosecution has to prove he killed Martin in a premeditated way (murder), then Zimmerman has to argue the defence of "self defence"

Otherwise, anyone who killed someone in an altercation would just be let go - you'd never convicat anyone. So long as the other guy was facing you you could just go "self defence" and go on your merry way.

Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless it was self defence. He has to be able to demonstrate genuine mortal fear, at least on the balance of probability, surely.

Sure he is. It's not difficult to close that distance.

but to open that distance Martin would have to stop attacking him - if the first thing Zimmerman does once the attack stops is shoot the guy, that doesn't really look like self defence.

Then stay out of America, I guess, at least the U.S. part of it.

Given the state of the hospitals and lack of professional law enforcement I live in fear that I might have to visit your country. A largely irrational fear, admittedly, but between the friend of Banquo's who got beaten up by New York Police for crossing the road and the Guardian journalist who nearly lost her arm to spider bites I don't trust my luck, which is bad.

Yes, it's kinda hard to shoot someone without drawing the gun.

And it's kinda hard to draw a gun when someone's shooting you in the face.

Don't know. Don't care. He paid for it.

And Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Question: What if Martin had killed Zimmerman with his bare hands and when asked said, "the guy pulled a gun and tried to shoot me."

Would you then say Zimmerman got what he deserved as well?

What exactly makes Zimmerman's life more valuable than Martin's that it's ok for Martin to be killed, but not Zimmerman?