Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sourclams wrote:

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.

Dunno I shoot Jehova's on sight

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.

Ahtman wrote:

sourclams wrote:

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.

Was that a good thing?

Kilkrazy wrote:Was that a good thing?

It was if you had a lot of blue in your wardrobe.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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!

sebster wrote:

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.

Note sure what you're getting at.

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.

Frazzled wrote:Note sure what you're getting at.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Moral of the story. Skittles kill.

FITZZ hit this on the head quite nicely

Frazzled wrote:

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?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

/rant (I'll take the answers off air )

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

A heart that isn't going to be examined, I think.

It's interesting to contrast this thread with the Free Speech thread.

Brits are shocked that in the USA someone can be shot down in the street with apparently no repercussions.

Americans are shocked that someone can get six weeks porridge in the UK for making racist hate statements in a public forum.

I don't know if either of them is the right thing really.

Put Z in jail for 6 weeks and let Spike Lee give out the Tweeter's home address?

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.