This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

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 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

that little thug that got shot?

---

This helps explain where you go 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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 on white oppression and the need to vote for Democrats to fight it.

Quote:

---

"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 in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This helps explain where you go 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.

Another one of our stellar representatives...

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/justic...?iref=obinsite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

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, 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!

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.

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:

[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

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.

US police had 'sought to arrest Trayvon Martin killer' - report

Quote:

---

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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 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, a minor incident that still gets played for applause three years later. (Note that black Americans do not have a monopoly on playing the racial outrage card.)

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. 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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's more to it. 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!

---

It certainly will...

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

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

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

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

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

-edit-

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

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

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

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

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

:pop2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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/

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You're watching to much msnbc

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

Basically, taking 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

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.

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. 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

So he's an indian fan of The Clash?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Incidental. No deeper meaning :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

http://themostrequested.tv/wp-conten...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

http://themostrequested.tv/wp-conten...-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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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 and the race-baiters. 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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

---

Actual statute:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.