An Unfortunate T-Shirt Hits Florida Streets In Wake Of Trayvon Martin KillingComments() Expanding the definition of “cracker,” a t-shirt featuring the photo of the man who shot Trayvon Martin is now available for purchase.
As seen at right (click to enlarge), the shirt has a picture of George Zimmerman and the words “Pussy Ass Cracker.” Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Hispanic, killed Martin, 17, last month while acting as a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida.
The shirt’s “pussy ass cracker” line is apparently a reference to lyrics from the rapper Plies’s song “100 Years,” which bemoans stiff sentences handed out by racist judges.
So hispanics are "crackers" now? Seems like they could have picked from a brevy of hispanic themed racist names and they chose the one that doesn't apply.
Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
NELS1031 wrote:Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
Only people who like to pretend that cracker is on the level of [racial slur]. It is a non-story (this T-shirt story) about frustrated people, regardless of race. Some people are looking to deflect the issue. "I know a kid is dead, but oh my goodness did you see what that rapper had on his t-shirt?"
NELS1031 wrote:Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
I don't think there's much offensive about the term in and of itself. It's the use that matters. If someone called me a "skunkpony," a term I just made up, and it was pretty clear that "skunkpony" meant that the person found me to be inferior because of my race, I'd be offended. The word "skunkpony" would just be a convenient symbol of the thing that offended me rather than that thing.
NELS1031 wrote:So hispanics are "crackers" now? Seems like they could have picked from a brevy of hispanic themed racist names and they chose the one that doesn't apply.
It just shows ignorance. but then again, if you're wearing that shirt in the first place, then you've already announced your ignorance.
Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
I am, but haven't been called such in a long time. Besides "dumb ass" is a much more accurate term to describe me.
Apparently, yeah see. I thought at first it would be white supremacists goading the fact that Trayvon got shot. Which was what I'd expect. A shirt saying "One less N**** in the world Heil Hitler."
If anything I can sympathize with the black community. This kid was just walking around getting skittles for his little brother and a iced tea for himself them BAM. Crazy town watch guy guns him down.
And I've heard the official 911 calls replayed on TV. They told Zimmermen that the cops were on their way. And they did -not- want him following him. So he goes and follows him and no less fething shoots him. I'd be equally as pissed if it were a white youth picking up candy in a black neighborhood, because America still has lots of segregation. And got gunned down. It's not fething race. It's the fact a likely schizophrenic motherfeth gunned down a unarmed youth in cold blood.
NELS1031 wrote:So hispanics are "crackers" now? Seems like they could have picked from a brevy of hispanic themed racist names and they chose the one that doesn't apply.
Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
Depending on how you categorize each term it is entirely possible for a Hispanic to be a cracker. The US census identifies both White Hispanics and Nonwhite Hispanics separately, although they may use more PC terms.
An Unfortunate T-Shirt Hits Florida Streets In Wake Of Trayvon Martin KillingComments()
Expanding the definition of “cracker,” a t-shirt featuring the photo of the man who shot Trayvon Martin is now available for purchase.
As seen at right (click to enlarge), the shirt has a picture of George Zimmerman and the words “Pussy Ass Cracker.” Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Hispanic, killed Martin, 17, last month while acting as a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida.
The shirt’s “pussy ass cracker” line is apparently a reference to lyrics from the rapper Plies’s song “100 Years,” which bemoans stiff sentences handed out by racist judges.
I can only imagine the outcry if someone went out with a N-word T-shirt (though its apparantly okay for said people to call each other it, as long as not White). Now that this is out, its ok?
Hypocracy and it undermines good racism movements.
Shadowbrand wrote:Apparently, yeah see. I thought at first it would be white supremacists goading the fact that Trayvon got shot. Which was what I'd expect. A shirt saying "One less N**** in the world Heil Hitler."
If anything I can sympathize with the black community. This kid was just walking around getting skittles for his little brother and a iced tea for himself them BAM. Crazy town watch guy guns him down.
And I've heard the official 911 calls replayed on TV. They told Zimmermen that the cops were on their way. And they did -not- want him following him. So he goes and follows him and no less fething shoots him. I'd be equally as pissed if it were a white youth picking up candy in a black neighborhood, because America still has lots of segregation. And got gunned down. It's not fething race. It's the fact a likely schizophrenic motherfeth gunned down a unarmed youth in cold blood.
They did tell him not to follow, but on the other hand, there are some pretty contradictory witness statements from the scene. I'm not 100% convinced we know what actually happened, but it certainly does look like he shot the kid for no reason whatsoever.
I consider calling a white person 'Nazi' to be on par with the N-word if not worse. The n-word is just deragotary, being called Nazi implies that you're a PoS git.
The shirt is stupid and the story is sad. I doubt the whole truth about it will come out. The situation is strange and it sounds like things are being hidden.
I found this link in the comments off of the OP. Now I'm really curious if the case is as generally cut and dry as the media is making it out to be, especially with regards to the image of Trayvon currently being put forth.
I found this link in the comments off of the OP. Now I'm really curious if the case is as generally cut and dry as the media is making it out to be, especially with regards to the image of Trayvon currently being put forth.
That was an interesting read and reinforces my belief that this case is not as simple as the media attempted to make it out.
I honestly do not think we have the right to get all bent out of shape about it. We are the nation of Jim-Crowe and the KKK, so I really think we should shut up and get over this, it is not a offensive slur.
Yup. It's easy to let this stuff roll of you when you're the dominant culture/identity.
When is the last time you see asian people getting so worked up been called a racial word equivalent?
My point stands, and its clear. If people can be civilized over even a racial slur, then the word itself holds no dominion over the people.
But we know some people love to use the race cards for everything.
Remember when USA built the transcontinental rail road? the chinese you guys had are treated pretty much like slaves,
and the racial slurs were used commonly. And you see how the chiinese dealt with it, gritted their teeth and continue to work hard?
First generation they worked like mules for their siblings. 2nd generation continued to work hard to further insure a better future.
3rd generation worked hard to be a contributing part of the society.
Do you see them use race card? ( sure some must have ) but generally they are very productive and less hateful compared to black people.
LunaHound wrote:A word is just a word, how severe the meaning is based on how much the user want it to be.
Cracker is just as bad as N@gger, the only difference is black people gets so angry and bent out of shape because they can.
Lets be honest here, how many of those that are offended by the N word was actually a slave?
None, then its just a racial slur used to incite hate, in that case cracker served the same purpose.
But white people dont get so angry over it.
Words matter, especially if they are backed up by a baseball bat. remember that Lunahound, and it may save your life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Johnny-Crass wrote:I honestly do not think we have the right to get all bent out of shape about it. We are the nation of Jim-Crowe and the KKK, so I really think we should shut up and get over this, it is not a offensive slur.
I'm pretty sure he's disagreeing with you and I can understand why.
There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.
In return, the Black Panthers have gone from a great organization that was simply trying to improve their communities to a militant and racist group. Meanwhile, the race card is pulled out every 30 seconds by some black leader trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame.
Johnny-Crass wrote:We are the nation of Jim-Crowe and the KKK, so I really think we should shut up and get over this, it is not a offensive slur.
You weren't part of KKK, what kkk did has NOTHING to do with you ( or so i assume )
stop feeling guilty for what you didn't do, and stop giving free rides on the race cards.
People use the term cracker to incite hate, Its a plus that you didnt fall for it ( very good for you ) yet to say its not offensive when its meant to, is a whole different story.
Amaya wrote:There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.
LunaHound wrote:A word is just a word, how severe the meaning is based on how much the user want it to be.
Cracker is just as bad as N@gger, the only difference is black people gets so angry and bent out of shape because they can.
Lets be honest here, how many of those that are offended by the N word was actually a slave?
None, then its just a racial slur used to incite hate, in that case cracker served the same purpose.
But white people dont get so angry over it.
Parts that made me go 'wtf?' in bold.
Both N word and C words were created negatively.
The slavery was done and over long ago. The chinese that immigrated to USA got over it and tried to be constructive with their lives.
Some of the blacks used the guilt ( e.g I would say Johnny is a good example of victim that guilt trip )
People take advantage of others, how long should you bend backwards to correct what the others had done so long ago?
Hence I said, they get angry, they use the race card, because They. Can.
So what is it when a black guy calls you "his n****"?
Edit: And walking past a group of black guys earlier, they were all n---a this and n---a that. Its obviously meaningless when they choose to treat it so.
LunaHound wrote:A word is just a word, how severe the meaning is based on how much the user want it to be.
Cracker is just as bad as N@gger, the only difference is black people gets so angry and bent out of shape because they can.
Lets be honest here, how many of those that are offended by the N word was actually a slave?
None, then its just a racial slur used to incite hate, in that case cracker served the same purpose.
But white people dont get so angry over it.
Parts that made me go 'wtf?' in bold.
Both N word and C words were created negatively.
The slavery was done and over long ago. The chinese that immigrated to USA got over it and tried to be constructive with their lives.
Some of the blacks used the guilt ( e.g I would say Johnny is a good example of victim that guilt trip )
People take advantage of others, how long should you bend backwards to correct what the others had done so long ago?
Hence I said, they get angry, they use the race card, because They. Can.
You seem to be of the impression that most black people 'use the race card' on a regular basis. And what does slavery have to do with...well, anything(in this discussion)?
Amaya wrote:There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.
You can't correct hundreds of years of tregedies with a couple of decades of affirmative action. Some ignorant white people think that we're bending over backwards to help blacks, but racism is alive and well today, even if not nearly as bad as it used to be.
Amaya wrote:In return, the Black Panthers have gone from a great organization that was simply trying to improve their communities to a militant and racist group.
Are you joking right now, or just sincerely don't know that the Black Panthers were always a militant group? That being said, the New Black Panther party is not the same organization, and are known to be racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies them as a hate group.
Amaya wrote:I consider calling a white person 'Nazi' to be on par with the N-word if not worse. The n-word is just deragotary, being called Nazi implies that you're a PoS git.
No one (well, I supposed some random nonsensical idiot might) calls a person a Nazi as a racial slur. They may call you a Nazi if they think you're a fascist and racist.
]
LunaHound wrote:A word is just a word, how severe the meaning is based on how much the user want it to be.
Cracker is just as bad as N@gger, the only difference is black people gets so angry and bent out of shape because they can.
Lets be honest here, how many of those that are offended by the N word was actually a slave?
None, then its just a racial slur used to incite hate, in that case cracker served the same purpose.
But white people dont get so angry over it.
Parts that made me go 'wtf?' in bold.
Both N word and C words were created negatively.
The slavery was done and over long ago. The chinese that immigrated to USA got over it and tried to be constructive with their lives.
Some of the blacks used the guilt ( e.g I would say Johnny is a good example of victim that guilt trip )
People take advantage of others, how long should you bend backwards to correct what the others had done so long ago?
Hence I said, they get angry, they use the race card, because They. Can.
You seem to be of the impression that most black people 'use the race card' on a regular basis. And what does slavery have to do with...well, anything(in this discussion)?
Im under the impression that ANYONE would use the xxxxx race card when they are able to.
Especially when they use it so easily and liberally. Like the penalty cards in a soccer match lol~
What does slavery have to do with the discussion? Havn't you been reading? part of the easy access to race card is guilt trip.
Guilt trip of past slavery and KKK misdoings.
Don't forget that capital "N" in "New". It's a proper name, and a different group. A hate group.
LunaHound wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
But white people dont get so angry over it.
Yup. It's easy to let this stuff roll of you when you're the dominant culture/identity.
When is the last time you see asian people getting so worked up been called a racial word equivalent?
My point stands, and its clear. If people can be civilized over even a racial slur, then the word itself holds no dominion over the people.
Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
LunaHound wrote:Remember when USA built the transcontinental rail road? the chinese you guys had are treated pretty much like slaves,
and the racial slurs were used commonly. And you see how the chiinese dealt with it, gritted their teeth and continue to work hard?
First generation they worked like mules for their siblings. 2nd generation continued to work hard to further insure a better future.
3rd generation worked hard to be a contributing part of the society.
Do you see them use race card? ( sure some must have ) but generally they are very productive and less hateful compared to black people.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
Im under the impression that ANYONE would use the xxxxx race card when they are able to.
Especially when they use it so easily and liberally. Like the penalty cards in a soccer match lol~
What does slavery have to do with the discussion? Havn't you been reading? part of the easy access to race card is guilt trip.
Guilt trip of past slavery and KKK misdoings.
Is that more clear?
My point is that the language you used was very 'us' and 'them' -oriented('they'). That's all fascinating, but I think you're missing the point if believe the 'race card' is as widely used as you think it is, and that oppression of blacks in the United States can be summarized by 'slavery and the KKK' alone.
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Obviously, the answer is because we like to use excuses about racism, right?
Luna does have a point. Racism against Asians is tolerated to the point where it is almost acceptable to do so and yet you see minimal outcry from them despite the poor treatment they receive.
Another thing is, a lot of stereotypes about Blacks are arguably positive in some way. Such as them being great athletes and having increased size below the waistline. Our culture places a greater emphasis on athleticism and sex than it does on intelligence. In some ways, black males are glorified for their supposed masculanity (sp?).
Luna I think we should feel responsible for the actions of others against a minority group. They are not first hand recipiants of this hate but it has festered over the years and still grows. In my town I see SS tattoos and Klan tattoos on a weekly basis. It is disgusting and because of things like that, that still live in small and large towns in America is the reason that we should shut up and take the term "Cracker" like the angsty white men that we are.
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
To busy having dance offs?
On the flip side, some of the geeks my boy hangs with:
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Obviously, the answer is because we like to use excuses about racism, right?
I'll tell you what I do know first hand.
There ARE black people in Vancouver, out of around 50 I have seen, only 1 behaved like a proper citizen.
the rest are drug dealers and pimps that are given free immigration status by the oh so stupid naive government.
With the new chance to start a new life you would think the immigrants would do it right, especially with how generous our social service are.
Yet, they gave into the temptation, of drugs, crime, human trafficking, the "glory" Hollywood portrays.
I guess my frustration stems from, people taking advantage of others. Because they can. And it both disgusts me and saddens me at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Johnny-Crass wrote:Luna I think we should feel responsible for the actions of others against a minority group. They are not first hand recipiants of this hate but it has festered over the years and still grows. In my town I see SS tattoos and Klan tattoos on a weekly basis. It is disgusting and because of things like that, that still live in small and large towns in America is the reason that we should shut up and take the term "Cracker" like the angsty white men that we are.
I know you and others will laugh at me for saying this, but I'll say it anyways.
The intolerance always exists, just in different forms. The thread in DCM area about trying to get rid of My little Pony threads , for me is as intolerant and disgusting as
the SS and KKK issues are.
Luna, thanks for taking my comments in a constructive light. I know if you were seeking to offended you could have used them as an excuse, and I really appreciate your not doing so.
LunaHound wrote:Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Well, aside from California/the West Coast specifically, Asians don't have nearly as much history of oppression and degradation here. The treatment of railroad workers and others in the West was HORRIBLE, but much more localized and a shorter period in time. Some more recent incidents like the internment camps during WWII have also been bad, but it's still nothing like the scale of literally hundreds of years of slavery, dehumanization, forced breeding and breaking up of families, torture, murder, and rape.
Black people in the slaveholding states have had to struggle to build a human life and existence from about as low and degraded and abused a state as any human beings have ever been in. Possibly the lowest and worst, as industrial slavery (as Manchu pointed out in the other thread) was a monstrous thing on a scale beyond the kind of localized slaveries of the ancient world. Up until as recently as the 60s and 70s black people were still being murdered with some regularity by racist terrorists like the KKK for "crimes" as slight as talking to a white girl, or trying to act like equal members of their communities.
The fact that you can make any comparison between intolerance of people's hobbies and the kind of monstrous evil of the KKK and the Nazis is a vivid illustration that this is basically an intellectual exercise for you, and aren't making a real connection yet with what we're talking about.
Amaya wrote:Luna does have a point. Racism against Asians is tolerated to the point where it is almost acceptable to do so and yet you see minimal outcry from them despite the poor treatment they receive.
Another thing is, a lot of stereotypes about Blacks are arguably positive in some way. Such as them being great athletes and having increased size below the waistline. Our culture places a greater emphasis on athleticism and sex than it does on intelligence. In some ways, black males are glorified for their supposed masculanity (sp?).
Stereotypes are always negative in that they endorse ignorance.
...not to say I'm adamantly opposed to people assuming I put a lot of points into DEX and have a [insert euphemism for penis] so long it needs a bipod attachment.
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Actually Luna in my experience I have found that Asians keep there opinions behind close doors. I grew up in Vancouver and the area I lived in had a lot of asians in it. I had quite a few Asian friends while I was growing up and the one word I kept hearing was "Guilo". Never knew what it ment until I was quite older.
I had a black classmate in 8th grade, only one in our class (small private school), everyone assumed he would be great at basketball and save our team. Nope, he was terrible. But he was pretty smart and for his age a really good artist. It must suck to be a 'normal' black guy and have everyone assume that you're a great athlete...especially if you don't even like sports.
There ARE black people in Vancouver, out of around 50 I have seen, only 1 behaved like a proper citizen.
the rest are drug dealers and pimps that are given free immigration status by the oh so stupid naive government.
With the new chance to start a new life you would think the immigrants would do it right, especially with how generous our social service are.
Yet, they gave into the temptation, of drugs, crime, human trafficking, the "glory" Hollywood portrays.
I guess my frustration stems from, people taking advantage of others. Because they can. And it both disgusts me and saddens me at the same time.
.
Yes, because people always appreciate things that are just given to them by the government.
Mannahnin wrote:Luna, thanks for taking my comments in a constructive light. I know if you were seeking to offended you could have used them as an excuse, and I really appreciate your not doing so.
LunaHound wrote:Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Well, aside from California/the West Coast specifically, Asians don't have nearly as much history of oppression and degradation here. The treatment of railroad workers and others in the West was HORRIBLE, but much more localized and a shorter period in time. Some more recent incidents like the internment camps during WWII have also been bad, but it's still nothing like the scale of literally hundreds of years of slavery, dehumanization, forced breeding and breaking up of families, torture, murder, and rape.
Black people in the slaveholding states have had to struggle to build a human life and existence from about as low and degraded and abused a state as any human beings have ever been in. Possibly the lowest and worst, as industrial slavery (as Manchu pointed out in the other thread) was a monstrous thing on a scale beyond the kind of localized slaveries of the ancient world. Up until as recently as the 60s and 70s black people were still being murdered with some regularity by racist terrorists like the KKK for "crimes" as slight as talking to a white girl, or trying to act like equal members of their communities.
The fact that you can make any comparison between intolerance of people's hobbies and the kind of monstrous evil of the KKK and the Nazis is a vivid illustration that this is basically an intellectual exercise for you, and aren't making a real connection yet with what we're talking about.
Even though I do feel sympathy for the horrendous acts, how long does white people have to bend over because of the past?
Im speaking out of concern as a bystander that is not even white.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Respectfully, I think you lack perspective on this one. You're on the younger side and you're not American. Not that Canada has no racism, but your comments in this thread indicate a total lack of understanding of the history of slavery and the black experience in America.
And I have seen Asians get upset over racism too, BTW.
Do you feel qualified to judge the comparative experiences of Chinese and African Americans in the US? You don't think the folks who worked the railroads hated anyone? Or that their descendents didn't resent exploitation by whites and hold grudges? You really don't know what you're talking about.
I respect and agree with your response. And never have I stated asians arnt capable of spamming race card ( i mentioned im sure some do )
Its true Im young and I never seen the USA slavery racism issue first hand or know anyone, yet.
I have one question due to logic.
Why is it we dont see asian causing trouble on the media, not in the same scale as black,
and not with that much with racism as excuse?
Actually Luna in my experience I have found that Asians keep there opinions behind close doors. I grew up in Vancouver and the area I lived in had a lot of asians in it. I had quite a few Asian friends while I was growing up and the one word I kept hearing was "Guilo". Never knew what it ment until I was quite older.
What does Guilo mean?
In my language it means " outsider" aka people not from same country.
In my other language it means Good o white guy, its a compliment, because we Taiwanese likes N.Americans
Neither have any negativity, infact most of our language doesnt have any bad words even slangs.
What we do have is bad phrases, in other words asians dont talk, we speak with our actions.
From what was explained to me it basically 'Lazy white boy' , 'Useless white person', etc etc etc. I am shure different family's used it in different ways. It's just a experience I went through when I started loosing a lot of my childhood asian friends and being called "guilo".
It might be like the way black people use the N word with the "A" on the end instead of 'er' -shrugs- I dunno I am not a shrink just a real life spam bot =o\
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
From what was explained to me it basically 'Lazy white boy' , 'Useless white person', etc etc etc. I am shure different family's used it in different ways. It's just a experience I went through when I started loosing a lot of my childhood asian friends and being called "guilo".
It might be like the way black people use the N word with the "A" on the end instead of 'er' -shrugs- I dunno I am not a shrink just a real life spam bot =o\
I understand where that "version" is comming from, but its not to do with the word itself, but the perspective from different type of asians ( I say asian because I dont like to group HK and TW together with chinese )
Asians takes pride in our productivity and efforts. So some people do see outisders ( none asians, including white people ) as lazy,
doing the mininum ( wait.... Homer Simpson basically ).
There you go, thinking about it, even American Cartoon agrees :'P
( remember the episode, that Japanese guy had a heart attack from working with Homer? )
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
From what was explained to me it basically 'Lazy white boy' , 'Useless white person', etc etc etc. I am shure different family's used it in different ways. It's just a experience I went through when I started loosing a lot of my childhood asian friends and being called "guilo".
It might be like the way black people use the N word with the "A" on the end instead of 'er' -shrugs- I dunno I am not a shrink just a real life spam bot =o\
I understand where that "version" is comming from, but its not to do with the word itself, but the perspective from different type of asians ( I say asian because I dont like to group HK and TW together with chinese )
Asians takes pride in our productivity and efforts. So some people do see outisders ( none asians, including white people ) as lazy,
doing the mininum ( wait.... Homer Simpson basically ).
There you go, thinking about it, even American Cartoon agrees :'P
( remember the episode, that Japanese guy had a heart attack from working with Homer? )
Yup. It's easy to let this stuff roll of you when you're the dominant culture/identity.
Exactly. Non-white people have been trying for a long time to find a racial slur to use against white people that is as offensive to us as all of the words white racists use to describe them, and it seems that so far they haven't. I personally don't find cracker to be offensive. Of course, it's generally almost impossible to offend me.
This is the only possible exception I've found. NSFW somewhat for content. (It's an episode of South Park.)
It's the part where atheism is equated to eating with your butt and pooping out your mouth that bothered me, since I share the common revulsion surrounding the issue of Catholic sexual abuse.
One of my friends who's a cop in the state capitol was telling me his view on the story and from what he understands Trayvon was shot for acting stupid.
It was dark, the guy already suspected that Trayvon was up to no good, Trayvon had on a hoodie which is common for a lot of people but usually associated with no good at night, and more importantly Trayvon reached into the waist of his pants to grab something.
Now we know that he supposedly grabbed a cell phone, but you'd be surprised as to what looks like what at night. You'd also be surprised as to what happens to you when you quickly reach for something tucked into the waist of your pants.
I found this link in the comments off of the OP. Now I'm really curious if the case is as generally cut and dry as the media is making it out to be, especially with regards to the image of Trayvon currently being put forth.
Wore a hoodie? Had multiple tattoos? Had a friend on facebook who threw up a gang sign in a picture? Smoked weed in high school?
I hope no one shoots me to death on the way to work tonight, because I think we've successfully established they'd be well within their rights to do so, free of consequences.
Quick I'll pay top dollars for photo of Michelle Obama ( i meant her daughter ) smoking weed, and perhaps we can find out whether she have friends that are gangsta in facebook :'D
halonachos wrote:One of my friends who's a cop in the state capitol was telling me his view on the story and from what he understands Trayvon was shot for acting stupid.
It was dark, the guy already suspected that Trayvon was up to no good, Trayvon had on a hoodie which is common for a lot of people but usually associated with no good at night, and more importantly Trayvon reached into the waist of his pants to grab something.
He was practically asking to be assaulted and shot by the neighborhood watch 'captain'. In fact it would have been rude not to. I mean, walking home? Wearing clothes? He was practically begging for it.
halonachos wrote:Now we know that he supposedly grabbed a cell phone, but you'd be surprised as to what looks like what at night. You'd also be surprised as to what happens to you when you quickly reach for something tucked into the waist of your pants.
He was talking to someone on the phone at the time. How often do people walk around talking into gun?
I found this link in the comments off of the OP. Now I'm really curious if the case is as generally cut and dry as the media is making it out to be, especially with regards to the image of Trayvon currently being put forth.
Jesus dude. I mean just fething hell.
The kid was shot because he was a black kid in an unfamiliar neighbourhood. Pointing out an article that says 'oh but look he had a gold tooth and a tatoo so maybe it was much more reasonable' is really, really fethed up.
We know he wasn't selling drugs on the street that night. We know he wasn't doing anything that looked even slightly like selling drugs. He was walking through an unfamiliar neighbourhood while black, and that was enough for a guy to suspect him of being a criminal, which ended up in him getting shot.
And that's really fethed up, and it's really sad that you can't get that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Whites may be the dominant ethnicity, but the 'ghetto' culture is certainly on the rise and certainly reached suburbia.
Having a sub-culture doesn't mean having any measure of political power. Typically sub-cultures are used to differentiate one's self from the mainstream, because that group is denied power within the mainstream.
Amaya wrote:I'm pretty sure he's disagreeing with you and I can understand why.
There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.
Except, of course, that the above is wrong.
Black people earn about 2/3 less than white people, per capita. Fix that, everything else will go away, more or less. Continue to have that problem, and any claim to 'bending over backwards' remains bs.
Witnesses said he was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and broke his nose. They also stated that it was Zimmerman calling for help on the 911 calls.
But don't let that get in the way of having a good old fashioned riot.
Piston Honda wrote:"reverse" racism implies that racism is a one way street.
It's not.
Racism is racism is racism. Can from anyone of any color.
It's complicated by the existance of two different things called racism. There's the common understanding, that when you dislike someone because they're a different race than your own that's racist. Cool, simple, intuitive, everyone gets it, otherwise known as xenophobia.
But there's also the study of systems, and how those systems work to favour some races over others. It's the idea of looking at wealth around the world, looking at the massively disproportionate wealth held by white people, and figuring out how that perpetuates from generation to generation. Part of that is noticing that systems today, even without deliberately racist acts from individuals, have a racist impact on society as a whole.
It's that second kind of racism in which the term 'reverse racism' has it's meaning, and that meaning is that 'Racist systems have an effect of accruing more power with white people, and less power with people of other ethnic groups. Reverse racism is systems geared to work in opposition to those racist systems.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Yep.
Nope. And you've been around long enough to have read my explanation of this at least three or four times. You don't get to just pretend there isn't more to it, you don't get to just choose to be ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:So what is it when a black guy calls you "his n****"?
Trivial bs, that gets hyperfocused on by white people so they can pretend they get the raw deal of a situation that otherwise benefits them immensely.
"Oh woe is me, here I am part of an ethnic group that gets paid $40,000 on average, compared to black people who get paid $32,000 on average, but get to use a word I can't use. It's just not fair."
I mean fething hell, take the money and stop whinging.
IF Trayvon had shot Z becuase he was some stranger that assaulted him and he felt his life was in danger, people would be praising him and call a hero, especially the NRA. Instead he was unarmed and fought back so apparently he deserved to be shot.
This is of course you buy into the rumors that he was beating Z's ass for assaulting him in the first place, and that the calls for help were indeed Z and not Trayvon. I have only seen people on the internet making the claim, no official source.
Ahtman wrote:This is of course you buy into the rumors that he was beating Z's ass for assaulting him in the first place, and that the calls for help were indeed Z and not Trayvon. I have only seen people on the internet making the claim, no official source.
Thats what I was thinking, and they cant provide any recording as evidence to who was calling for help?
Ahtman wrote:IF Trayvon had shot Z becuase he was some stranger that assaulted him and he felt his life was in danger, people would be praising him and call a hero, especially the NRA. Instead he was unarmed and fought back so apparently he deserved to be shot.
This is of course you buy into the rumors that he was beating Z's ass for assaulting him in the first place, and that the calls for help were indeed Z and not Trayvon. I have only seen people on the internet making the claim, no official source.
Personally, I'd find it weird for the NRA to praise a black guy for that kinda thing. It just doesn't seem in character to me.
Ahtman wrote:This is of course you buy into the rumors that he was beating Z's ass for assaulting him in the first place, and that the calls for help were indeed Z and not Trayvon. I have only seen people on the internet making the claim, no official source.
Thats what I was thinking, and they cant provide any recording as evidence to who was calling for help?
I found some articles saying it now, but it still seems weak. Z claims it, and the people on the 911 don't see anything. Let's assume he was beating his ass in self defense. You know what would have avoided getting your ass beat? Not chasing after a person and accosting them, especially after being told by the police that you shouldn't do that. If he was as battered as he claims it seems odd to wait till the next day to go to the hospital instead of that night. If you have a broken nose and had your had smacked against the sidewalk you wouldn't wait that long, you would need to go asap.
I'm telling you if some random stranger comes up on me and starts putting their hands on me I'm not going to wait around and hope he means well but is stupid, I'm going to defend myself.
Ahtman wrote:This is of course you buy into the rumors that he was beating Z's ass for assaulting him in the first place, and that the calls for help were indeed Z and not Trayvon. I have only seen people on the internet making the claim, no official source.
Thats what I was thinking, and they cant provide any recording as evidence to who was calling for help?
I found some articles saying it now, but it still seems weak. Z claims it, and the people on the 911 don't see anything. Let's assume he was beating his ass in self defense. You know what would have avoided getting your ass beat? Not chasing after a person and accosting them, especially after being told by the police that you shouldn't do that.
I'm telling you if some random stranger comes up on me and starts putting their hands on me I'm not going to wait around and hope he means well but is stupid, I'm going to defend myself.
Maybe its just me, but Zimmerman seems awfully "enthusiastic" going after Trygon
Logic dictates I agree with you xD
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Witnesses said he was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and broke his nose. They also stated that it was Zimmerman calling for help on the 911 calls.
But don't let that get in the way of having a good old fashioned riot.
The fact he started a fight, then realized he bit off more then he could chew and shot the other party does not a justified shooting make, not in my book.
Also, asking for an arrest and an investigation is not the same as "having a good old fashion riot". It's not unreasonable to expect that someone involved in a shooting be tested for drugs and alcohol regardless of the details.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Witnesses said he was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete and broke his nose. They also stated that it was Zimmerman calling for help on the 911 calls.
But don't let that get in the way of having a good old fashioned riot.
Why did he approach Trayvon at all? But no please, refer to as much irrelevant nonsense as you like to avoid having to actually think about this issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
LunaHound wrote: Maybe its just me, but Zimmerman seems awfully "enthusiastic" going after Trygon Logic dictates I agree with you xD
Ahtman wrote:He was talking to someone on the phone at the time. How often do people walk around talking into gun?
You don't talk to your guns?? I 'talked' with sweet sweet charlene everynight... she was only a Airsoft gun but she was still nice and I loved her. Alas though like all good things in life she was taken from me to soon....( ie I was broke and had to sell her =o\ )
Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”
Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know:
1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner]
2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel]
3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze]
4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View]
5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no documented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner]
6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News]
The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marignal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here.
Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy.
Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”
And everyone in the rightwing noise machine, Malkin, Drudge, all of them, should be absolutely ashamed. And just as ashamed should be anyone on this site who continues to read their gak and repeat here, once it's become so obvious they are nothing more than lying liars who lie to people who want to hear lies that reflect their politics.
I found this link in the comments off of the OP. Now I'm really curious if the case is as generally cut and dry as the media is making it out to be, especially with regards to the image of Trayvon currently being put forth.
Wore a hoodie? Had multiple tattoos? Had a friend on facebook who threw up a gang sign in a picture? Smoked weed in high school?
I hope no one shoots me to death on the way to work tonight, because I think we've successfully established they'd be well within their rights to do so, free of consequences.
Don't forget was caught with a load of jewelry and a screw driver when he was suspended. Great kid.
Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”
Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know:
1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner]
2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel]
3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze]
4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View]
5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no documented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner]
6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News]
The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marignal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here.
Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy.
I was completely unaware that the child in question was dressed in a striped top, carrying a sack with SWAG written on the side and wearing a domino mask.
Kilkrazy wrote:You really think that justifies shooting him?
Non sequitor or some such Englishy word.
It shows this isn't the black and white thing its being made out to be.
*The kid didn't look like a mormon teenager, but potentially much more thuggish, making a report more understandable.
*Witness testimony is now contradicting and supporting Z's story that he was going back to his car when attacked. If attacked and in fear for your life you can defend youself, in pretty much every jurisdiction in the US and UK.
*The 911 call is now being disputed - the screams on the phone have now been testified to as belonging to Z and not the kid. That further support's Z's story.
*Other parties are now using this as some sort of race rally and fight against self defense laws and legal ownership of guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
hey there's a guy that looks like a thief.
I was completely unaware that the child in question was dressed in a striped top, carrying a sack with SWAG written on the side and wearing a domino mask.
Kilkrazy wrote:You really think that justifies shooting him?
Non sequitor or some such Englishy word.
It shows this isn't the black and white thing its being made out to be.
*The kid didn't look like a mormon teenager, but potentially much more thuggish, making a report more understandable.
*Witness testimony is now contradicting and supporting Z's story that he was going back to his car when attacked. If attacked and in fear for your life you can defend youself, in pretty much every jurisdiction in the US and UK.
*The 911 call is now being disputed - the screams on the phone have now been testified to as belonging to Z and not the kid. That further support's Z's story.
*Other parties are now using this as some sort of race rally and fight against self defense laws and legal ownership of guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
hey there's a guy that looks like a thief.
I was completely unaware that the child in question was dressed in a striped top, carrying a sack with SWAG written on the side and wearing a domino mask.
.. oh.. wait...
SOunds like a good party.
This is why the thing needs to go to court as was recommended when the case was discussed on DakDak a couple of weeks ago.
However it looks like that will not happen. People are lining up on racial and political grounds to choose "evidence" that supports their preconceptions.
The last time we discussed this case, my opinion was that the shooter was possibly justified in his actions -- i.e. in genuine fear of his life. I am finding that harder difficult to believe as more "evidence" emerges. In particular, if the case against Trayvon really is so strong, I don't see why people have to make up a lot of lies to support it.
It shows this isn't the black and white thing its being made out to be.
Actually this, and comments like yours, make it more and more this.
black man in hood = thug. Got ya.
Black man in hood. Whatever Teenager in tats. Teenager who may or may not have been a drug dealer / thief in a gated community where the alleged shooter most of the people, and had previous incident of home burglaries.
It makes justifiction to report the kid more realistic. Getting out of the car was a bad idea. However now the Z statement makes more sense. If Z didn't confront Trayvon, but was instead the one confronted, and was then attacked, then it was a good shoot.
Everyone may commence calling me a racist, evil, blah blah now and feel superior.
Teenager who may or may not have been a drug dealer / thief ....
Or someone collecting for charity or, I dunno, someone visiting a family member ? CRAZY talk I know.
It's almost like determining who is and isn't allowed in places like that isn't actually up to random blowhard idiots with a gun and an overinflated sense of self importance and seemingly feth all else to do with their time.
Still it's always reassuring to know that people's worry about their blessed right to carry guns so they can kill innocent strangers , seemingly on a whim, will always triumph over basic human decency.
If it's so open and shut there won't be any trouble getting Z off.
Whats the charge Mr. Prosecutor?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Teenager who may or may not have been a drug dealer / thief ....
Or someone collecting for charity or, I dunno, someone visiting a family member ? CRAZY talk I know.
It's almost like determining who is and isn't allowed in places like that isn't actually up to random blowhard idiots with a gun and an overinflated sense of self importance and seemingly feth all else to do with their time.
Still it's always reassuring to know that people's worry about their blessed right to carry guns so they can kill innocent strangers , seemingly on a whim, will always triumph over basic human decency.
So now you're arguing you can't in fact call 911? Seriously?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Teenager who may or may not have been a drug dealer / thief ....
Or someone collecting for charity or, I dunno, someone visiting a family member ? CRAZY talk I know.
It's almost like determining who is and isn't allowed in places like that isn't actually up to random blowhard idiots with a gun and an overinflated sense of self importance and seemingly feth all else to do with their time.
Still it's always reassuring to know that people's worry about their blessed right to carry guns so they can kill innocent strangers , seemingly on a whim, will always triumph over basic human decency.
You're the one bringing guns into the argument.
On the psoitive, if you don't like it, don't come here.
Not THAT far from Sanford is a little town called Fort Christams. there they have an old fort and some old Ranch houses. Its a pretty cool place for a day trip if you live in the area.
Anyway, the old ranch houses (1870 to 1930) in the area were made out of a cheap wood called cracker board. Typically, only lowly ranch hands and farmers lived in these buildings.
I'm at work, and can't do the proper research on the term, but I wonder if these meager cracker board buildings somehow led to the term, Cracker?
So now you're arguing you can't in fact call 911? Seriously?
No and no.
Well done.
I would urge that if you do see someone doing something suspicious -- personally I don't think someone, in broad daylight, walking down the road eating, drinking and/or chatting on a mobile phone is that note worthy but I can, almost, imagine how it could be -- then calling 911/999/number appropriate for the country is the right thing to do.
And then do what they say, not decide to go all Punisher on their ass, as, you know, there's a more than good chance the guy is doing nothing and minding his own business.
On the psoitive, if you don't like it, don't come here.
Seeing how you treat your own citizens I have no desire to, worry not.
Besides IIRC there's a (former) poster who has a bruther (sic) who works in scurity ( sic) at the airport ( Because there's only 1 in America it seems) who will look out for me and then come and $%^& me up. Apparently.
There has to be a crime to charge someone. As Fraz pointed out, IF the shoot was in self defense and therefore within the law, there is no crime.
No crime = no charge = no trial
That is kind of the way the system is supposed to work. And not just when YOU feel it applies.
You can't arrest and charge the guy until you have a charge... Perhaps that is why they are investigating? If the investigation turns up enough credible evidence to charge Zimmerman, they will.
CptJake wrote:There has to be a crime to charge someone. As Fraz pointed out, IF the shoot was in self defense and therefore within the law, there is no crime.
No crime = no charge = no trial
That is kind of the way the system is supposed to work. And not just when YOU feel it applies.
You can't arrest and charge the guy until you have a charge... Perhaps that is why they are investigating? If the investigation turns up enough credible evidence to charge Zimmerman, they will.
Shh I was laying a very badly done trap for KK.
I think we're seeing the difficulty and why its taken some time. You have to be able to define the type of crime and part of that is the mental state required.
He may be charged, but its not an easy case as there is no key witness who actually saw what actually happened. On the one hand we're talking murder or some sort of manslaugter if Z actually pursued and then confronted T. On the other hand we're talking self defense if T confronted or attacked Z. Unfortunately there is no camera or witness as to who confronted who or how these guys got into the fight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:This is exactly the kind of case where the trial determines if there has been a crime or not.
Are they investigating?
The state has taken over the investigation. The feds are searching for a reason to get involved, although it has been some time so they may have backed off.
Again, there may be charges here, but its twitchy either way. I can say in Texas, usually defendants with a reasonable level of factual support for self defense are no billed, but in a circumstance like this would likely have charges against them, and the defendant would have to prove the defense of er self defense (sorry to repeat the same word).
Note: except in Austin of course in which case the full power of the government would attempt to put them in jail.
Kilkrazy wrote:This is exactly the kind of case where the trial determines if there has been a crime or not.
Are they investigating?
You are gaking me right? You actually advocate arresting and detaining a person without a charge, or making up a charge for some crime you are not sure happened?
If this had gone differently and the kid was arrested and held on charges of theft until a trial to see if maybe a theft had occured and maybe the charged was the perp would you have been happy? Or would you then bitch and whine because some poor kid was detained and charged before it had been established a crime had occured let alone that he may have been the perp?
A trial determines if an accused/charged suspect has committed the crime he/she is charged with. If the cops and prosecutor don't have damned good evidence that 1) a crime has occured and 2) the charged subject is the perp, you don't go to trial.
Trayvon Martin shooting: New details emerge from Twitter account, witness testimony
By Dylan Stableford
Senior Media Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – 19 hrs ago
Martin (AP/File, Twitter)
As George Zimmerman's supporters work to stem the rising tide of public outrage aimed at the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin last month, a new picture of the victim—culled from the 17-year-old's Twitter account and witness testimony leaked from local law enforcement—has emerged.
"With a single punch," the Orlando Sentinel, citing police sources, reported Monday, "Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer ... climbed on top of [him] and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered."
"That is the account Zimmerman gave police," the paper said, "and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say."
Zimmerman's attorney, Craig Sonner, says that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and is not a racist as some have portrayed him.
"I think we need to let the investigation come forward and let all the facts in this case come out," Sonner said on the "Today" show. "I think it's going to tell a different story than the way it's been related and portrayed in the media."
According to a CNN poll released Monday, 73 percent of Americans think police should arrest Zimmerman.
Meanwhile, the difference between the typical teenager Martin's family and supporters say he was and the way he presented himself on social media is the subject of increasing debate.
As Dan Linehan, a blogger at Wagist.com, pointed out, correspondence with Martin on Twitter before he died alludes to an incident with a bus driver. "Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver," Martin's cousin wrote to him on Feb. 21.
The same week, Martin was suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade. "He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that," his father said. "It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property]," declining to offer more details.
But a family spokesman told the Associated Press on Monday that Martin was suspended because marijuana residue was found in his book bag.
More than 25,000 were expected to attend an afternoon rally in Sanford, Fla., on Monday for Martin, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders.
"The media is getting the Trayvon Martin story wrong," Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote on BusinessInsider.com, comparing it to the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which three members of the lacrosse team were accused of rape, resulting in a media firestorm and public outcry. The accuser's case unraveled, and the charges were eventually dropped.
"Oh how little we have learned," David Shane wrote on PolicyMic.com. The media has rushed to judgment yet again. Now, it's quite possible that Zimmerman is guilty of everything his worst foes accuse him of. There is plenty about this case that troubles me. But that's exactly the point—I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and both the scope and tone of the media coverage ought to reflect that fact."
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.
Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.
Also, for a crowd that loves to point out leaps in logic I'm surprised no one has pointed out that while thinking all black kids in hoodies are up to know good is despicable and murdering someone is certainly despicable, being the type of person who thinks all black kids in hoodies are up to no good is not actually the same thing as being the type of person who murders people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:I fail to believe that if you start a fight and start to lose, you can shoot your opponent and claim self-defense.
That's a nice soundbyte but don't gloss over the distinction between verbal and physical confrontations. If Zimmerman verbally offended Martin and Martin punched him in the face, it's Martin that has "started" the fight giving rise to the self-defense claim.
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.
Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.
Depends on "provoked" and confrontation doesn't it. Of course, Z's statement is that he did neither.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:I fail to believe that if you start a fight and start to lose, you can shoot your opponent and claim self-defense.
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
In defense of that statement, in many of the states prior to the 1960s this would not be an unreasonable suspicion.
Oh, I agree. But in this case, it's not the police who are stuck in the 60s ...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.
It would take a fact-free zone to determine that Zimmerman killed Martin because Zimmerman was a racist and the police refuse to arrest Martin because they're all racists, too. So yeah, I can see that much of this thread has indeed been a fact-free zone.
Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.
Thats the problem.
We know:
* T was shot by Z
* Z was bloodied.
* 911 call to police about soeone suspicious. Police warn Z not to follow. Sounds on 911 call have someone screaming.
* Witnesses report the screaming is Z. Other witnesses report that T was afraid he was being followed.
* Skittles are awesome.
Kilkrazy wrote:This is exactly the kind of case where the trial determines if there has been a crime or not.
Are they investigating?
You are gaking me right? You actually advocate arresting and detaining a person without a charge, or making up a charge for some crime you are not sure happened?
If this had gone differently and the kid was arrested and held on charges of theft until a trial to see if maybe a theft had occured and maybe the charged was the perp would you have been happy? Or would you then bitch and whine because some poor kid was detained and charged before it had been established a crime had occured let alone that he may have been the perp?
A trial determines if an accused/charged suspect has committed the crime he/she is charged with. If the cops and prosecutor don't have damned good evidence that 1) a crime has occured and 2) the charged subject is the perp, you don't go to trial.
Maybe where you are from the system is different.
You may not realise it but the US and UK systems are far more similar than different, as the US system derived from the UK law.
The police can arrest someone on suspicion of murder, for example, and hold them for a period in order to make further enquiries.
A judge may then be requested either to remand the suspect into custody or release them on bail. The suspect may of course simply be released without charge if there is no convincing evidence against him.
In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.
Amaya wrote:I'm pretty sure he's disagreeing with you and I can understand why.
There has been a great deal of mistreatment of minorities by whites, but for the past couple of decades whites have been bending over backwards to correct these tragedies.
Except, of course, that the above is wrong.
Black people earn about 2/3 less than white people, per capita. Fix that, everything else will go away, more or less. Continue to have that problem, and any claim to 'bending over backwards' remains bs.
Then why do African immigrants earn more than any other ethnic group other than Asians?
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
Pretty much. If there is solid evidence, he would've have been arrested immediately.
Kilkrazy wrote:
The police can arrest someone on suspicion of murder, for example, and hold them for a period in order to make further enquiries.
Here's where you are incorrect. The "period" you are referring to in the US doesn't effectively exist. You have to be charged or be talking with the police. If you declare your right to 5th amendment protections you can only be held for a very short period of time, else you must be charged or released. Further, you cannot then be held without a bail hearing.
Kilkrazy wrote:In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.
Like speaking with witnesses who corroborate the shooter's account?
Manchu wrote:TBH, the idea that the cops won't arrest Zimmerman because of pervasive institutionalized racism seems like a wacko conspiracy theory.
I agree. They won't arrest him because, when they arrived on the scene, he had, according to them, pretty clearly been physically assaulted.
Where "Stand Your Ground" laws become tricky is cases like this; Zimmerman clearly could have not pursued the kid. In Virginia, if he'd pursued, provoked a confrontation, and then wound up shooting, even to save his own life, he'd still be going away for manslaughter at the least, because you give up your right to cowboy up the second you start carrying concealed. Florida law's much less clear.
Depends on "provoked" and confrontation doesn't it. Of course, Z's statement is that he did neither.
It does indeed depend on "provoked," and as far as I'm aware, there's no legal definition of what that involves. Thus, it's a jury call.
Frazzled wrote:I'd bet there's no "provoked" in the law.
Under the law, its not generally legal to "be provoked" unless you yourself are acting in defense of self or others.
There isn't. Here's the actual Florida law, I think:
"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
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."
The kid was a punk, it sucks when people get killed but sometimes you put yourself in situations that do get you killed. The kid was suspended from school and was not the 11 year old that most of the media show him as. He was 17 and over six feet tall.
Zimmerman was bloodied and cut which is evidence for his story that Trayvon assaulted him. Zimmerman followed against police wishes, but followed him nonetheless.Then the same guy who had just kicked his ass said "What's your problem?" while on the phone and had reached into his waistband for the phone. Typically gangbangers will carry firearms in their waistband.
So let's have at this part about Zimmerman not knowing Tryvon's past.
1) Zimmerman probably knew the typical locations of where troublemakers store their weapons.
2) Zimmerman didn't know it was a phone that Trayvon was holding.
3) Zimmerman knew that he had just been beaten by this guy.
So we have somebody holding a cellphone which can look like a small handgun in the night and we have Trayvon yelling "What's your problem!". I can understand why Trayvon got shot.
Seaward wrote:That does indeed seem to give someone the right to shoot someone else in the face if they pick a fight and start to lose.
I would proffer no. Generally this claim cannot be justified in the furtherance of a crime (either in the statute or by case law), and has to be reasonable. Reasonable is its own case law standard, but in most jurisdictions losing a fistfight is not permitted self defense with a firearm as its not reasonable. However, being attacked and the circumstances of that attack are a determining factor.
Kilkrazy wrote:In this case the only evidence immediately available is the word of the shooter, which obviously could be biased, so one would expect the police to have to make further enquiries.
Like speaking with witnesses who corroborate the shooter's account?
Indeed.
In this case I understand there are witnesses who support and witnesses who deny the shooter's overall account, although there are no actual eye witnesses to the immediate shooting incident.
Manchu wrote:Again, what's with the assumption that a verbal insult gives someone the right to commit physical assault?
EDIT: Nevermind, I see that you weren't necessarily commenting on the case at hand.
Yes. Given what we know of the case at hand right now, I suspect Zimmerman will end up just barely within his legal rights, given the way the Florida law's written. Doesn't mean he did the right thing.
The generalized story is that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is an overzealous weirdo. Put it another way, if Zimmerman was not a weirdo, Martin would still be alive. But what about the beatdown Martin allegedly gave Zimmerman? It is possible that had Martin not beaten Zimmerman that Zimmerman would have still killed Martin. But is this likely? Also, if Zimmerman could not plausibly allege that Martin had beaten him, Zimmerman would not doubt currently be in jail.
If Zimmerman had not been beaten by Trayvon then Zimmerman would indeed be in jail and maybe Zimmerman would have just brandished his firearm instead of actually firing.
Anyways, this has quickly become an issue of race and its disgusting.
Don't wear a hoodie at night in a neighborhood that doesn't know who you are.
Manchu wrote:The generalized story is that Martin is dead because Zimmerman is an overzealous weirdo. Put it another way, if Zimmerman was not a weirdo, Martin would still be alive. But what about the beatdown Martin allegedly gave Zimmerman? It is possible that had Martin not beaten Zimmerman that Zimmerman would have still killed Martin. But is this likely? Also, if Zimmerman could not plausibly allege that Martin had beaten him, Zimmerman would not doubt currently be in jail.
Reportedly there is now a witness that saw T on top of Z, punching him and Z screaming. The witness ran upstairs to call police and in that period saw that T was now on the ground having been shot.
halonachos wrote:Don't wear a hoodie at night in a neighborhood that doesn't know who you are.
Nah, the lesson is "if you see someone suspicious in you're neighborhood, lock the door and call the police rather than grabbing a firearm, following them, and confronting them."
Ouze wrote:Ah, but now we're in a fact free zone, where what actually happened is TBD.
It would take a fact-free zone to determine that Zimmerman killed Martin because Zimmerman was a racist and the police refuse to arrest Martin because they're all racists, too. So yeah, I can see that much of this thread has indeed been a fact-free zone.
What I mean is that we're in that phase of the media where, absent actual determinations of fact, they're just spinning their wheels and coming up with random nonsense. Eventually what actually happened will come out, it will be reported, and we can move on to the Media Fatigue phase.
Frazzled wrote:Reportedly there is now a witness that saw T on top of Z, punching him and Z screaming. The witness ran upstairs to call police and in that period saw that T was now on the ground having been shot.
Just like one can ask "why did Zimmerman shoot Martin?" to undermine Zimmerman's destractors, one can ask "why did Martin beat Zimmerman?" to undermine Zimmerman supporters. The problem Zimmerman's detractors face is that while following someone around for a short period and then saying something insulting to them is mean and stupid, it not against the law. Punching someone down and then continuing to beat them, while perhaps an understandable reaction in this case, is against the law.
And finally, shooting someone who you reasonably believe means to kill you or cause you great bodily harm is not against the law.
Speaking of fact free zones, where is your evidence he only insulted him? You've said it several times now but if we are being objective we can't say anything since we don't know if he physically accosted him, only insulted him, or put his finger an inch from his face and said "I'm not touching you".
Manchu wrote:Nah, the lesson is "if you see someone suspicious in you're neighborhood, lock the door and call the police rather than grabbing a firearm, following them, and confronting them."
This is it, in a nutshell.
Neighborhood watch is exactly that, "watch" not "go out and get im' ". From what I have read they were both at fault, and unfortunately the situation escalated out of control.
All could have been avoided if the the watchmen had done what he was supposed to do.
Ok this is just weird. I could see doing that to stop others from making money off your kid or, inversely, using any proceeds for charity or a good cause, but its just, weird.
Well, my response to your post concedes my assumption. The next step in what is already proving to be another fruitful exchange is to ask what the removal of that assumption implies.
Manchu wrote:Well, my response to your post concedes my assumption. The next step in what is already proving to be another fruitful exchange is to ask what the removal of that assumption implies.
I can't tell if you're being facetious, which isn't very useful at this juncture, or purposely being obtuse. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask how you came to the conclusion that there was just an verbal component only on the part of Z. You presented the argument more than once and I am curious as to why you came to that conclusion.
If you were just trying to point out that there are multiple possibilities of what could have happened in that moment I would think there were better ways of going about it than just picking one of the alternate possibilities and harping on it. You could have just said that we don't know what the inciting incident was that began the physical altercation.
To try and be more succinct*, I can't tell if that is what you believe happened or if you are trying to point out alternate theories of what began the physical altercation.
It wasn’t until Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, called to file a missing-persons report on Feb. 27 that police went to his fiancee’s house with pictures of his son’s dead body. News reports have said that Trayvon’s body was tagged as a John Doe. But the “Partial Report Only” that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number. How did police get that information? Was Trayvon carrying identification? Did police try to contact that home number?
Trayvon’s father called his cell phone several times. Why didn’t police answer Trayvon’s cell phone?
Zimmerman reportedly had a bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his head and was given first aid by a Sanford Fire Department rescue unit. Where is their report of his injuries? Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s injuries?
Did the officer who arrived on the scene and placed Zimmerman in handcuffs read him his Miranda rights?
That same officer who put Zimmerman in handcuffs reported, “While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard him state ‘I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.’ At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place.” Why not?
Zimmerman was then taken to the Sanford Police Department and interviewed by an investigator. Was that interview recorded?
Was there blood splatter from Trayvon on Zimmerman’s clothing? Were any tests done on Zimmerman’s clothing? DNA? Gunpowder?
Were any photographs taken of Zimmerman’s clothing? Was the clothing taken into evidence.
Were there any signs of a struggle on Trayvon? Scratches, bruises? Were there any traces of Zimmerman’s hair or skin on Trayvon’s clothing or under his fingernails?
A drug and alcohol test was performed on Trayvon’s body. Were drugs and/or alcohol found in his system? There are reports that a similar test wasn’t done on Zimmerman? If not, why not?
You don’t have to be a devotee of “Law and Order” or “CSI” to come up with these questions. They’re pretty basic and common-sense. That they have to be asked one month and one day after the killing of Trayvon Martin is alarming.
The idea that Zimmerman only verbally confronted Martin is not an argument that I was "harping" on. It's an assumption that I unthinkingly made more than once. You pointed out that it was an assumption and I acknowledged that. And then I asked what the opposite possibility would imply.
Look at the size of that graphic. How is no one talking about Laundry care. That pic will crack and then you have a cracked Cracker. An no one wants to put cheese on those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Neighborhood Watch Me shoot this kid and get away with it.
LunaHound wrote:This all happened because Zim wanted a piece of Tray before the police arrive.
That seems true to me. I mean, they told him to stand down.
If Zim wants to follow Tray to make sure he doesn't escape, that is fine but he could have done it from a distance, especially with police arriving VERY SHORTLY.
The time when on the phone the police told him to stand down, you can tell the elevated excitement in zim's voice.
the point is, Tray could be a drug dealer, or he could be an innocent victim,
either way doesn't change the fact that his death was a murder.
It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.
It looks to me that the the detective thought he had enough evidence but the lawyers thought otherwise. I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.
Manchu wrote: I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.
Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.
Monster Rain wrote:Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?
Manchu wrote: I'd go with the legal analysis of the lawyers myself but I am biased after all.
Are you insinuating that the legal analysis of practicing lawyers is likely to be more accurate than that of random denizens of the internet?
Blasphemy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:It is starting to seem that the main driving factor behind this circus is a lack of transparency. It would be a tragedy even if everything were handled perfectly, but it seems that things were handled badly, and then some things were covered up or kept from the public. Information is leaked on both sides, and it is akin to water torture with the minor drips but still nothing definitive. To many secrets, and there doesn't seem to be much reason for it.
This may be a bit OT but what do you think the media and the people in this discussion would make of the situation if this were reversed? Would we even be talking about it right now? Sometimes you have to wonder...
Frazzled wrote:So now you're arguing you can't in fact call 911? Seriously?
Of course someone can call 911. And they will, when they see an unfamiliar face in a gated community. And they are much, much more likely to do that when the unfamiliar face is black.
Maybe that's reasonable, because black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than other ethnicities.
But the net effect of this is that black people are more likely to be looked at suspciously wherever they go. So that even when you're doing nothing but going down the road to get some skittles, there's a far greater chance of having the cops called on you.
And I cannot believe that people are trying so hard to ignore how fethed up that is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alraz_ka wrote:Then why do African immigrants earn more than any other ethnic group other than Asians?
So by this post, you mean 'more than hispanics, but less than asians and for some reason probably relating to magic we're ignoring white people altogether'.
Here are the numbers for people in full time work, between the ages of 25 and 64. Asian 42,109 White 40,422 African American 32,021 Hispanic 27,266
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The kid was a punk, it sucks when people get killed but sometimes you put yourself in situations that do get you killed. The kid was suspended from school and was not the 11 year old that most of the media show him as. He was 17 and over six feet tall.
So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:And now, ladies and gentlemen, the wild speculation and barely coherent teenage angst portion of the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Fact: No one knows if the death was murder. Calling it murder and stating it as a fact is asinine at this point.
Fact - We know very little about the case. But that hasn't stopped people speculating about all kinds of stuff.
The only three things we really do know is that a kid drew suspicion upon himself for being black, that suspicion led to a chain of events that got him killed, and that this reflects on a really fethed up situation for kids everywhere who will continue to be suspected of being up to no good simply because they are black.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Solar Awesome wrote:This may be a bit OT but what do you think the media and the people in this discussion would make of the situation if this were reversed? Would we even be talking about it right now? Sometimes you have to wonder...
Do you think there are gated communities filled almost entirely with black people in which a white kid walking along with a packet of skittles would be suspected of being a likely suspect for home burglaries.
I mean seriously dude, this isn't a thought exercise. It happened as it happened because it reflects how things work in the real world.
Congresswoman Frederica Wilson wrote:Mr Zimmerman should be arrested immediately for his own safety
What a wonderful understanding of what arrest and detention are supposed to be for, and what the constitution (including the amendments) she is sworn to uphold actually mean.
sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.
sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.
Maybe we should state mandate clothes so that some people won't have to worry about some other people thinking they are suspicious becuase they don't dress like Jehovah's Witnesses. Not that this would stop con men or white collar criminals who already tend to dress in such a way as to play into peoples bias as to go unseen.
sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.
Just for clarification, the point I'm making is that race/skin color is only one input and probably a relatively minor one in in this specific case of heuristic thinking (stereotyping).
The bigger factor is that you see before you an individual that basically fits a 'gangsta' template.
There's plenty of non-white families (heck, mine) in the upper-middle class suburban area where I live. It does not bother me in the least to see black, middle eastern, Indian, or hispanic/latino families/children/teens walking around. It would bother me to see an unknown young man with prominent tattoos, gold teeth, and "rapper clothes"; i.e. Trayvon Martin, strolling around the street. Even then, I probably would not be bothered enough to call the police, but my area does not have a history of crime or violence either.
sebster wrote:So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.
Maybe we should state mandate clothes so that some people won't have to worry about some other people thinking they are suspicious becuase they don't dress like Jehovah's Witnesses. Not that this would stop con men or white collar criminals who already tend to dress in such a way as to play into peoples bias as to go unseen.
When I was in LA, if you wore the wrong color you were subject to summary execution. If you wore red or green in Pomona you were taking your life in your hand.
If she was walking along a street at night in an ankle length dress and wearing a hijab and dressed like a respectful Muslim women, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem. She was drawing attention to herself the way she was dressed and basically asking to be sexually assaulted by the clothes she wore.
It also seems that only urban fashion is inherently criminal or dangerous, as there has been no mention of other questionable outfits. I wonder why that is.
Ahtman wrote:If she was walking along a street at night in an ankle length dress and wearing a hijab and dressed like a respectful Muslim women, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem. She was drawing attention to herself the way she was dressed and basically asking to be sexually assaulted by the clothes she wore.
It also seems that only urban fashion is inherently criminal or dangerous, as there has been no mention of other questionable outfits. I wonder why that is.
Ahtman wrote:If she was walking along a street at night in an ankle length dress and wearing a hijab and dressed like a respectful Muslim women, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem. She was drawing attention to herself the way she was dressed and basically asking to be sexually assaulted by the clothes she wore.
It also seems that only urban fashion is inherently criminal or dangerous, as there has been no mention of other questionable outfits. I wonder why that is.
I think you may have posted in the wrong thread.
Nope. The first is an attempt to get my head around the 'the clothes caused the problem' by applying it to other scenarios to see if it pans out, the second is an observation of the pattern of what clothing apparently scares and confuses people.
Ahtman wrote:If she was walking along a street at night in an ankle length dress and wearing a hijab and dressed like a respectful Muslim women, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem. She was drawing attention to herself the way she was dressed and basically asking to be sexually assaulted by the clothes she wore.
It also seems that only urban fashion is inherently criminal or dangerous, as there has been no mention of other questionable outfits. I wonder why that is.
I think you may have posted in the wrong thread.
Nope. The first is an attempt to get my head around the 'the clothes caused the problem' by applying it to other scenarios to see if it pans out, the second is an observation of the pattern of what clothing apparently scares and confuses people.
You might detail that better because your example just kind of appears with no reference causing a "wha? must have sat on the remote and changed the channel again," moment.
What other fashion is inherently dangerous? Are hoodies inherently dangerous? Inherently stupid looking I agree.
Ask a cop who patrols a bad inner city area how certain clothing and or even a certain race can be an indicator.
For example, in an area my brother patrols, 2-3 white kids in nicer clothes at night will generally be pulled over. They fit the profile for 'trying to buy dope'.
CptJake wrote:Ask a cop who patrols a bad inner city area how certain clothing and or even a certain race can be an indicator.
For example, in an area my brother patrols, 2-3 white kids in nicer clothes at night will generally be pulled over. They fit the profile for 'trying to buy dope'.
Its like the human eye tracking movement (or the shooting test in Men in Black). Anything that catches the eye as out of place can be suspicious.
Except old guys in Hawaiian shirts because we're just epic cool anywhere. Hawaiian short mafia HURR!
Frazzled wrote:So now you're arguing you can't in fact call 911? Seriously?
Of course someone can call 911. And they will, when they see an unfamiliar face in a gated community. And they are much, much more likely to do that when the unfamiliar face is black.
Maybe that's reasonable, because black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than other ethnicities.
I think it's more accurate to say that black people are statistically more likely to be convicted of a crime than other ethnicities. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are committing more crimes, just that they get convicted more. It could be just as much a sign of bias in the justice system as black people committing more crimes.
African American males have a much higher statistical chance of being murdered. The vast majority of those murders are due to other African American males.
African American males have a much higher statistical chance of being murdered. The vast majority of those murders are due to other African American males.
I'm just a stickler for accuracy about these kinds of things. Statistics are easy to use to make general statements which appear to be supported but which aren't technically backed up by the evidence in the data.
It's one of the reasons I hate politicians, they use statistics without actually understanding what the numbers mean and so come to ridiculous conclusions and claim that evidence supports them. Then their supporters accept that without looking at the data and repeat it until it's accepted as being the truth. It's truth through repetition.
halonachos wrote:The kid was a punk, it sucks when people get killed but sometimes you put yourself in situations that do get you killed. The kid was suspended from school and was not the 11 year old that most of the media show him as. He was 17 and over six feet tall.
So he was tall and black and walking along a street at night. I can see how using that as a metric for assessing someone as a criminal wouldn't piss off anyone who just happened to be tall and black.
I mean fething hell people, how are you not getting this?
Okay, here we go again making poor assumptions and taking things out of context. In fact there had been a series of burglaries in the area by suspects who were described as "black males" of some height. Not sure about the exact height but I would guess that they were around 5'8 to 6'2. Unfortunately Trayvon fit the description, and this is something else that's incredibly special, its a primarily white neighborhood from what I can recall. That means he did indeed stick out like a sore thumb, its all about context sebster.
Oh and I wear hoodies, but even I recognize the fact that troublemakers wear hoodies. Especially at night with the hood up.
Could someone...anyone,please explain to me how the fact that this kid was wearing a hoodie, or had tattoos, or dressed "Gangsta"...or even had a past criminal record or was wearing a sack of cocaine on his head like a hat somehow 'justifies" his killing?
The kid was walking down a street and just maybe...perhaps...possiably could have...fit the description of "someone" who at some time comited a crime in the area (a black male between 3 and 8 feet tall,18 to 99 years of age, between 100 and 450 pounds...since that seems to be some folks estimation of what a "criminal" is.) and ,it appears to me,was shot for no real reason whatsoever other than being the "wrong color" in the "wrong place".
FITZZ wrote: Could someone...anyone,please explain to me how the fact that this kid was wearing a hoodie, or had tattoos, or dressed "Gangsta"...or even had a past criminal record or was wearing a sack of cocaine on his head like a hat somehow 'justifies" his killing?
The kid was walking down a street and just maybe...perhaps...possiably could have...fit the description of "someone" who at some time comited a crime in the area (a black male between 3 and 8 feet tall,18 to 99 years of age, between 100 and 450 pounds...since that seems to be some folks estimation of what a "criminal" is.) and ,it appears to me,was shot for no real reason whatsoever other than being the "wrong color" in the "wrong place".
Well if he had a sack of cocaine on his head then thats what half a Kilo? How much is that worth? Dude I've got bills to pay and Daddy need a new pair of everything, that justifies it to me...
As to the hoodie I don't know. People claiming the Thug Lite was sweet and innocent talk about the hoodie. People claiming sweet little Trayvon was innocent in th rain with his hoodie note it to.
I see a teenager with tats and gold teeth in an area of burglaries, that drew the attention of the local Batman wannabe. Batman wannabe started following and called The Fuzz, but got out of his vehicle when Thug Lite ditched him, but as Batman wannabe was going back to his truck sweet little Trayvon confronted him and allegedly started to wail on Batman wannabe (sounds like the batman wannabe from Dark Knight). Batman wannabe, not liking getting his head stove in, blasted the nefarious youth. No more Twitter.
FITZZ wrote: Could someone...anyone,please explain to me how the fact that this kid was wearing a hoodie, or had tattoos, or dressed "Gangsta"...or even had a past criminal record or was wearing a sack of cocaine on his head like a hat somehow 'justifies" his killing?
The kid was walking down a street and just maybe...perhaps...possiably could have...fit the description of "someone" who at some time comited a crime in the area (a black male between 3 and 8 feet tall,18 to 99 years of age, between 100 and 450 pounds...since that seems to be some folks estimation of what a "criminal" is.) and ,it appears to me,was shot for no real reason whatsoever other than being the "wrong color" in the "wrong place".
Well if he had a sack of cocaine on his head then thats what half a Kilo? How much is that worth? Dude I've got bills to pay and Daddy need a new pair of everything, that justifies it to me...
FITZZ wrote: Could someone...anyone,please explain to me how the fact that this kid was wearing a hoodie, or had tattoos, or dressed "Gangsta"...or even had a past criminal record or was wearing a sack of cocaine on his head like a hat somehow 'justifies" his killing?
The kid was walking down a street and just maybe...perhaps...possiably could have...fit the description of "someone" who at some time comited a crime in the area (a black male between 3 and 8 feet tall,18 to 99 years of age, between 100 and 450 pounds...since that seems to be some folks estimation of what a "criminal" is.) and ,it appears to me,was shot for no real reason whatsoever other than being the "wrong color" in the "wrong place".
Well if he had a sack of cocaine on his head then thats what half a Kilo? How much is that worth? Dude I've got bills to pay and Daddy need a new pair of everything, that justifies it to me...
Is that half a kilo of pure or cut?
I don't know, you'll have to ask Fitz. but as I'll take even a free coffee lets keep it simple and say cut.
FITZZ wrote: Could someone...anyone,please explain to me how the fact that this kid was wearing a hoodie, or had tattoos, or dressed "Gangsta"...or even had a past criminal record or was wearing a sack of cocaine on his head like a hat somehow 'justifies" his killing?
The kid was walking down a street and just maybe...perhaps...possiably could have...fit the description of "someone" who at some time comited a crime in the area (a black male between 3 and 8 feet tall,18 to 99 years of age, between 100 and 450 pounds...since that seems to be some folks estimation of what a "criminal" is.) and ,it appears to me,was shot for no real reason whatsoever other than being the "wrong color" in the "wrong place".
It doesn't justify the killing.
What it does, however, is present doubts about the idea that Martin was an innocent angel who was just gunned down by a madman in the streets.
It presents doubts that Martin might actually have done something to confront Zimmerman which escalated into a scuffle and then resulted in his death.
Right now though, the case is just becoming an escalating war of leaks over who can make the other look the worst. Trayvon is having a lot of stuff come to light which paints him in a negative light; and the Sanford police department is looking more like they either have something to hide or are just downright incompetent.
I'll take incompetent. On the other hand the prosecutor didn't go forward so...
Regardless I would not want to be the prosecutor or a jury member on this one. It has just enough lack of real evidence to make it a bad decision no matter what.
Honestly, I don't even know why I'm surprised at this kind of thing happening. Sure statistics show blah blah blah, but most of the people put into jail are for drug offenses. Having lil traces of weed or crack or something. If you believe that the law is blind and fair then you are a fool or are privileged with being the preferred race or status.
Yes, there are many violent crimes perpetrated by all races, though there are definitely more occurrences of black men being convicted of a crime they did not commit and spending years and years in jail before anyone even cares to really check the story. I know for a fact that if i was picked up for a crime, even if I have a good alibi and everything, I'll be more likely to be convicted and put away than my white counterpart.
And oh wow, gang members kill each other! It's such a shock! Never mind the fact that there are plenty of hispanic gangs doing the same crap and worse in mexico and over the border. I've got an idea, maybe if we actually worked to give people opportunities and safety then maybe they wouldn't feel like they need to turn to a gang.
If it really does matter how you look then maybe at least the white and beautiful people will be safe. I mean its always how someone looks that defines if they're gonna commit crimes or are up to no good right? Nevermind that there are plenty of instances of some crazy white kid goin' off and just murdering classmates and random people at their school. I worry about that alot more than some gansta wannabees. At least they show you on the outside that you should stay away.
One last thing, which I would really want people to think about. If you can say that race is not an issue in society or the law, then would you choose to be a different race? If so, then why?
From what I've read/ seen, the entire situation, including how things are now being handled in the media and by the "powers that be" just really seem like a complette balls up.
But, I still believe that the chief motivator in the initail confrontation was " Black guy/wrong place".
As a side note...
Despite your myriad of finacial needs and wants Frazz, I'd have to discourage you from the sales of Columbian marching powder...Weiner dog legion has an entirely differnet meaning inside corectional institutions.
FITZZ wrote: From what I've read/ seen, the entire situation, including how things are now being handled in the media and by the "powers that be" just really seem like a complette balls up.
But, I still believe that the chief motivator in the initail confrontation was " Black guy/wrong place".
As a side note...
Despite your myriad of finacial needs and wants Frazz, I'd have to discourage you from the sales of Columbian marching powder...Weiner dog legion has an entirely differnet meaning inside corectional institutions.
"I'm not in here with you. You're in here, with me."
FITZZ wrote: From what I've read/ seen, the entire situation, including how things are now being handled in the media and by the "powers that be" just really seem like a complette balls up.
But, I still believe that the chief motivator in the initail confrontation was " Black guy/wrong place".
As a side note...
Despite your myriad of finacial needs and wants Frazz, I'd have to discourage you from the sales of Columbian marching powder...Weiner dog legion has an entirely differnet meaning inside corectional institutions.
Fitzz has nailed it IMO.
Welcome back, by the way.
The only other thing to mention is that we have fulfilled the "BLAME THE VICTIM" meme.
FITZZ wrote: From what I've read/ seen, the entire situation, including how things are now being handled in the media and by the "powers that be" just really seem like a complette balls up.
But, I still believe that the chief motivator in the initail confrontation was " Black guy/wrong place".
As a side note...
Despite your myriad of finacial needs and wants Frazz, I'd have to discourage you from the sales of Columbian marching powder...Weiner dog legion has an entirely differnet meaning inside corectional institutions.
Fitzz has nailed it IMO.
Welcome back, by the way.
The only other thing to mention is that we have fulfilled the "BLAME THE VICTIM" meme.
Aya but who's the victim? Thats the heart of the matter.
NELS1031 wrote: Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
Yes.Unless you are using it in a historical context, but given I'm not a rancher I'd then be confused or realize you don't know what you are talking about.
Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
NELS1031 wrote:
Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
I'm obviously missing something but could someone explain to me how Cracker is offensive? I'm guessing it's some form of American slang?
To me it's
a) someone who hacks software to remove security
b) a foodstuff commonly eaten with cheese
c) a twisted paper item containing a thing which goes bang, a small paper hat, an amusing toy and an unamusing joke.
I've always assumed it to mean some one who is basically dull/ bland and pasty, but it could (perhaps) be a referance to a whip, as in one who "cracks" a whip.
FITZZ wrote: Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
FITZZ wrote: Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
Why? I didn't have a part of any of that, at all.
You're also very easily offended, if your posting history is indicative of your personality.
I've been called a cracker before, when I was in college. My response was to go back to back to my dormitory on the campus of an expensive private school, go out to a club, order bottle service, and ultimately have sex with my girlfriend who was on birth control.
Its amazing how the finer things in life make insults melt away.
CptJake wrote:Ask a cop who patrols a bad inner city area how certain clothing and or even a certain race can be an indicator.
For example, in an area my brother patrols, 2-3 white kids in nicer clothes at night will generally be pulled over. They fit the profile for 'trying to buy dope'.
Any wealthy kid who buys drugs in the inner city is an idiot. Not only because you're likely to be caught, but because the dealer himself will screw you over hard.
College campuses are where you go for your merchandise. The ratio, by and large, is about one campus dealer per 100 kids, and generally they are smart enough, or sufficiently willing to take the requisite risks, to avoid being caught by cops and deal with dealers.
Thats awesome you could do that, although its hardly relevant. I was the first to graduate high school much less college (Dad was right behind me, weird but cool old fart). I didn't have those advantages or those things.
I also didn't go around calling people names because of their skin tone. I called people names because they were donkey-caves.
FITZZ wrote: Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
Why? I didn't have a part of any of that, at all.
Of course "you" didn't frazz, but...I don't think anyone can deny that in a great many ways and for a great many years white America has been less than nice to it's African American population, and so a bit of animosity (while perhaps not particularly "productive") is absolutelly understandable...or rather I should say that I understand it.
FITZZ wrote: Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
Why? I didn't have a part of any of that, at all.
Of course "you" didn't frazz, but...I don't think anyone can deny that in a great many ways and for a great many years white America has been less than nice to it's African American population, and so a bit of animosity (while perhaps not particularly "productive") is absolutelly understandable...or rather I should say that I understand it.
And when I was in LA, vice versa. Does that give me the right to go around calling people names and blasting them from a car? Help me, I've been oppressed!
Frazzled wrote:Thats awesome you could do that, although its hardly relevant. I was the first to graduate high school much less college (Dad was right behind me, weird but cool old fart). I didn't have those advantages or those things.
I also didn't go around calling people names because of their skin tone. I called people names because they were donkey-caves.
The point is that when you don't face racial stigma in the vast majority of the country, there's little to complain about.
Perspective is your friend here. I always tell my black, or Middle Eastern these days, friends who complain about racism a little to much the story of a guy I knew in college (name redacted).
He was short, fat, black, gay, and the son of adoptive Jewish parents who lived in Arkansas. That dude had it rough. He was Harold & Kumar come to life.
Frazzled wrote:Thats awesome you could do that, although its hardly relevant. I was the first to graduate high school much less college (Dad was right behind me, weird but cool old fart). I didn't have those advantages or those things.
I also didn't go around calling people names because of their skin tone. I called people names because they were donkey-caves.
The point is that when you don't face racial stigma in the vast majority of the country, there's little to complain about.
Perspective is your friend here. I always tell my black, or Middle Eastern these days, friends who complain about racism a little to much the story of a guy I knew in college (name redacted).
He was short, fat, black, gay, and the son of adoptive Jewish parents who lived in Arkansas. That dude had it rough. He was Harold & Kumar come to life.
That is bad. Arkansas is beautiful, but its like the South's version of New Mexico.
NELS1031 wrote:
Also, is anyone actually offended by the term cracker?
I'm obviously missing something but could someone explain to me how Cracker is offensive? I'm guessing it's some form of American slang?
Cracker is a remark in relation to being slave owners (or ranchers if you happen to be a Floridian, but that detail goes unnoticed most of the time). Kinda like calling you immoral and telling you that you should feel bad for something that was done well before you were born.
FITZZ wrote: Not to "defend" any sort of "racist insults", but I think that after centuries of slavery, Jim Crowe, fire hoses and police dogs coupled with swinging night sticks, discrimination, profiling, lynchings and overall poor treatment, being called a "cracker" is getting off pretty easily.
None of which is my fault. It also wouldn't have happened had the African empires kept pace with their Arab and European counterparts.
And you aren't personally being blamed either, except by outliers like the New Black Panthers I suppose, but it is naive to act as if just not being slaves suddenly fixed, both institutionally and socially, all issues regarding race. We may not have been slave owners in this time but we still live with its legacy. Pretending that issues aren't there doesn't make them go away.
SaintTom wrote:Honestly, I don't even know why I'm surprised at this kind of thing happening. Sure statistics show blah blah blah, but most of the people put into jail are for drug offenses. Having lil traces of weed or crack or something.
Which means they got off lucky that they'd already smoked it. Nobody buys empty bags with drug residue in them. It doesn't meant they're less criminal it means they didn't get caught.
And oh wow, gang members kill each other! It's such a shock! Never mind the fact that there are plenty of hispanic gangs doing the same crap and worse in mexico and over the border. I've got an idea, maybe if we actually worked to give people opportunities and safety then maybe they wouldn't feel like they need to turn to a gang.
You mean like sending them to school and letting them live in a gated community?
If it really does matter how you look then maybe at least the white and beautiful people will be safe. I mean its always how someone looks that defines if they're gonna commit crimes or are up to no good right?
I've seen Cops. Yes.
One last thing, which I would really want people to think about. If you can say that race is not an issue in society or the law, then would you choose to be a different race? If so, then why?
Hm, well I don't say that so I guess I get a pass on this one.
Alraz_ka wrote:Does the American society consider African American males more threatening than other males and if so, why?
According to statistics the FBI collects African Americans, not just males but in general, have arrest rates for crimes at a rate that is double what as their population would suggest. Ie: 12.6% of the society (That is, African-Americans) commit 24% of all crimes (up to 40% of all murders, 50% of all burglaries, and 31% of all prostitution crimes). They also have a rather impressive percent when it comes to being a new host for an std, sitting at 70%.
SaintTom wrote:Honestly, I don't even know why I'm surprised at this kind of thing happening. Sure statistics show blah blah blah, but most of the people put into jail are for drug offenses. Having lil traces of weed or crack or something.
Which means they got off lucky that they'd already smoked it. Nobody buys empty bags with drug residue in them. It doesn't meant they're less criminal it means they didn't get caught.
That is true, though I suppose I should of worded it better in that alot of times they could of avoided going to jail over it if, basically, they weren't poor or a minority. Plus it isn't like they actually get any help for their addiction in prison. It's more likely they'll come out even more messed up than before
And oh wow, gang members kill each other! It's such a shock! Never mind the fact that there are plenty of hispanic gangs doing the same crap and worse in mexico and over the border. I've got an idea, maybe if we actually worked to give people opportunities and safety then maybe they wouldn't feel like they need to turn to a gang.
You mean like sending them to school and letting them live in a gated community?
School yes, but specifically, much better schools than what they have in most urban areas. Most of the time the school system being good or not directly depends on the wealth of the community they are at. And thinking upwards.. Nice
If it really does matter how you look then maybe at least the white and beautiful people will be safe. I mean its always how someone looks that defines if they're gonna commit crimes or are up to no good right?
I've seen Cops. Yes.
lol I wasn't even thinking of COPS but you certainly got a laugh outta me.
One last thing, which I would really want people to think about. If you can say that race is not an issue in society or the law, then would you choose to be a different race? If so, then why?
Hm, well I don't say that so I guess I get a pass on this one.
Yes, you get the Internet cookie.
Blue is mine, apologies if you find it hard to look at. Didn't see too many appealing choices on colors.
sourclams wrote:If he was tall and black and walking along a street at night in Dockers khakhis and a tucked in business casual shirt looking like a clean cut Jehova's Witness, that probably would probably cause much less of a problem.
And if he was wearing a hoodie and had white skin, that would cause much less of a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:Just for clarification, the point I'm making is that race/skin color is only one input and probably a relatively minor one in in this specific case of heuristic thinking (stereotyping).
That's a very carefully chosen way of describing treating someone as a criminal because they happen to loosely line up with how criminals are portrayed in the media. And when you're born with a skin colour that leads to certain kinds of "heuristic thinking" then you're more likely to get treated like a criminal.
Which, as I've said a few times, is very fething obviously a problem, shown clearly by the events that started this thread, and I absolutely cannot believe the efforts people are going to ignore it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:I think it's more accurate to say that black people are statistically more likely to be convicted of a crime than other ethnicities. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are committing more crimes, just that they get convicted more. It could be just as much a sign of bias in the justice system as black people committing more crimes.
No, I think it's pretty safe to say they are committing more crimes. The system has problems, but it doesn't have problems on that scale.
It's important to recognise there are basic social drivers for why black guys are committing crimes more often, but there's no point pretending it isn't true.
LunaHound wrote:Surgeon General Warning: Please wear Hoodies responsively. Complications MAY occur if worn by certain ethnicity or worn at certain time.
I have exposed ears. So they get cold fast, So i love my hoods. But my mom always says i look like im up to no good
halonachos wrote:Okay, here we go again making poor assumptions and taking things out of context. In fact there had been a series of burglaries in the area by suspects who were described as "black males" of some height. Not sure about the exact height but I would guess that they were around 5'8 to 6'2. Unfortunately Trayvon fit the description, and this is something else that's incredibly special, its a primarily white neighborhood from what I can recall. That means he did indeed stick out like a sore thumb, its all about context sebster.
Oh and I wear hoodies, but even I recognize the fact that troublemakers wear hoodies. Especially at night with the hood up.
I'm not taking anything out of context. Your effort to give context changed nothing, and still described the exact same fethed up situation.
Imagine you're a dude who's, I don't know, left handed. Imagine that left handed people were treated poorly for a long time, and while reforms did happen to give them equal treatment before the law, they remained on the bottom rung of society. Being on the bottom rung of society, there is typically more crime committed by left handed people.
Which means that when you were talking down the street and someone noticed you were favouring your left hand, they immediately thought of crimes that were committed in the area by someone who was also left handed.
You have nothing to do with that person, you just happen to share a superficial trait. But now you're suspected of a crime. Everywhere you go, you're more likely than a right handed person to be suspected of crime, because of a quirk of genetics that has nothing to do with how you live your life.
Anyone on this planet should be able to say 'well that's fethed up and clearly not fair'. And yet this happens to a black guy, and so many people invent so much nonsense to avoid saying 'well that's fethed up and clearly not fair'.
Alraz_ka wrote:Does the American society consider African American males more threatening than other males and if so, why?
According to statistics the FBI collects African Americans, not just males but in general, have arrest rates for crimes at a rate that is double what as their population would suggest. Ie: 12.6% of the society (That is, African-Americans) commit 24% of all crimes (up to 40% of all murders, 50% of all burglaries, and 31% of all prostitution crimes). They also have a rather impressive percent when it comes to being a new host for an std, sitting at 70%.
Sources: FBI, CDC, Census Bureau
Considering we know it isn't a genetic issue, the question then becomes why are these so high in comparison? There are a lot of different answers and it is probably a combination of some of them, but a lot of it is going involve building marginalized communities in the shadow slavery and then extreme prejudice. While things get better there is still not a reasonable parity with other groups. It doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen when people just act as if it is an individual issue when it is a societal and community issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Surgeon General Warning: Please wear Hoodies responsively. Complications MAY occur if worn by certain ethnicity or worn at certain time.
Ahtman wrote:the question then becomes why are these so high in comparison?
We have a saying that "money and power is everything."
When the said subject in question, has no money or real form of power, they resort to the basics..
Having power and control over someone's life and well being. No matter how rich or powerful someone is, they'll be at the mercy of the perpetrator.
That rush and temporary power, I imagine, is what drives them.
Ahtman wrote:Looks dangerous, gonna have to put her down.
sebster wrote:I don't even get the MLP cartoon. She says she likes hoodies. She gives a reason for it. There's no joke there.
Is it just 'this is vaguely related to a topical issue and has a picture of a pony so the brony crowd will love it and think they're being political'?
Two things. 1 the surgeon warning. 2, Hoodie on different wearer have different out comes... as you have seen the past... say 8 pages?
Though of course a cute pony and a black man should be equal, but in this world we know it is not to be.
Feigning ignorance just for an attempt to get me might not be in your best interest seb
LunaHound wrote:Two things. 1 the surgeon warning. 2, Hoodie on different wearer have different out comes... as you have seen the past... say 8 pages?
Though of course a cute pony and a black man should be equal, but in this world we know it is not to be.
Feigning ignorance just for an attempt to get me might not be in your best interest seb
Now I'm just more confused. An attempt to get you to what?
Alraz_ka wrote:Does the American society consider African American males more threatening than other males and if so, why?
Not answering this question honestly is why we can't have a real discussion about race, stereotypes, and moving into the 21st century.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Surgeon General Warning: Please wear Hoodies responsively. Complications MAY occur if worn by certain ethnicity or worn at certain time.
Is it bad that I want to wear my necktie like a bandanna, stab it to death with a bic pen, bath in its blood and hold its head high in my hands while shouting "the Weather Man is Dead!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:But my mom always says i look like im up to no good
started makin' trouble in my neighborhood
I got in one little fight and my mom scared
and said you're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air
Would that make you the Fresh Princess of Bel-Air? Quick, someone write a theme song.
Frazzled wrote:Is it bad that I want to wear my necktie like a bandanna, stab it to death with a bic pen, bath in its blood and hold its head high in my hands while shouting "the Weather Man is Dead!!!"p:
Frazzled wrote:Is it bad that I want to wear my necktie like a bandanna, stab it to death with a bic pen, bath in its blood and hold its head high in my hands while shouting "the Weather Man is Dead!!!"p:
Alraz_ka wrote:Does the American society consider African American males more threatening than other males and if so, why?
I think the main issue here is that 'African American males' gets conflated with 'hood rat gangstas'.
I don't think that Trayvon found heat because he was a young African American male. I think he found heat because he was a hood rat gangsta.
Just to clarify, you think that is how Trayvon was perceived, as a hood rat gangsta? So, you would argue that American (Gated Community) Society consider African American males as hood rat gangstas?
Or
Are you saying that Travyon was a hood rat gangsta, and not just perceived as one?
Arkansas is beautiful, but its like the South's version of New Mexico.
