Trayvon Martin discussion

[don't]

I believe that TX or maybe, Kansas, has a law letting even a NEIGHBOR use deadly force to protect YOUR property! Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me. How does your neighbor know if you've let your buddy go get something, for instance?

[don't]

if you are less than 10 ft away, as most confrontations ARE, you can THROW something at his face, and, if fit and trained, either take 1-2 steps or jump kick or jump punch him. You don't need a knife to rip out throat, eyes, testicles, you use a knife to slash at his arms, rendering him much less able to harm you, while staying further away from him.

Given a jump and twisting into the Horse position, leaning, etc, it's possible to punch from MUCH further away than amost anyone realizes is feasible, and quick enough to score on most people, do. Notice that UFC guys rarely punch at chest? A trained man's punch can EASILY break ribs, putting that fighter out of action for months. :-)

There are a lot of people here who don't have enough to do with their time!!

I didn't read everything here, but of what I read:

I emphatically agree with Quicksilver about everything he said. He knows what he is talking about regarding gun rights - sorry BibleBelt - I've had martial arts training in Kempo and while using a gun is technically a "martial art" in that it pertains to martial warfare, that's really a stretch of the historical connotation of the word. The reason why the original "martial arts" made use of body parts and extensions of the body like a sword or staff is because those were all the weapons they had to work with. Depending on how you define "long range" attack, it just wasn't possible unless you were proficient with a bow or could throw a sharp object accurately.

Bottom line - you can learn all the martial arts you want to - God like even. But if I have a gun and you are not within a relatively close proximity to me, your skill is virtually irrelevant because a bullet can travel infinitely faster than you, even if I don't have extensive training or experience in firearm handling/use.

Quicksilver is also right about the legal procedure in this case (coming from a former law student.

Danger is right about his overall assessment:

Originally Posted by Danger

Bottom line, Trayvon should not have assaulted Zimmerman.

If you knew that a string of break-ins was occurring in your neighborhood, would you not follow someone who you have never seen before and looked suspicious? Is that really a crime? Does that confer to Trayvon the right to assault Zimmerman?

This isn't about racism, this is about assault, plain and simple.

What I find tragic is that the New Panthers have not been arrested for offering a contract on a person. As far as I know, that is illegal. But then, I do not expect Holder do push for that sort of thing amongst his administration.

Add to that how the media only shows pictures of Trayvon that are four years old and Obama's idiotic statement, not unlike "beergate" where he accused police of acting stupidly, and you have a media circus with an agenda. Oh, and I almost forgot NBC editing the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was racist....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-l...n-police-tape/

When I first saw the pictures and reports, I thought some man had shot a 12 year old kid who was minding his own business. Come to find out it was a 17 year old 6' 3" athlete that was pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. Did anyone else feel manipulated?

It would be nice if a reporter had the balls to ask Obama if his son would have gold teeth as well. Or if he would have been suspended from school for graffiti, which of course the news reported as Trayvon being suspended for TEN days for being late. Yeah right.

In short, no I do not think it was racism, as of course the enhanced audio shows here.

I even agree with most of what Backbreaker said except for:

Originally Posted by backbreaker

I'm not trying to condemn the Zimmerman dude just yet. i'm a pretty rational dude even though i think he should be locked up until they decide if they want to go ahead with him or not....

but this black kid walking down the street in a nice place with a hoodie thing... this type of talk i can't stomach that. we should be past that as a society. i should be able to walk outside of my house, of my dad's house, my wife's brother's house, my mom's house wearing what i damn well please and feel safe.

As a libertarian, I emphatically disagree with the idea that a person should be "locked up" until they figure out whether he did something wrong! You don't incarcerate someone on an assumption that they may have done something... you incarcerate them after the judicial system has obtain enough evidence and authority to determine they actually did something!

Second, Backbreaker, and everyone else, you have to recognize, especially given that you guys are posting on a PUA website, that the image your project is the image people will perceive you by. For better or for worse, there is a dress code the average person is going to stereotype as "thuggish". Just like there is a dress code the average person will stereotype as "professional", "slobbish", "preppy", "sexy", and so on. White people AND black people can dress thuggish.

While I was getting my political science BA, I spent a lot of time studying racial issues. I got a certificate from my university of racial and gender conflict management (the gender issues they discussed were feminized beyond the point of utility BTW). I'm familiar with a lot of the academic scholarship surrounding the current black/white racial un-pleasantries there are in this country. I've done original research that I will not link to on this website because I don't want my personal identity to be associated with my identity here (If you really want to read my published journal article, PM me). But it focused on the disparity that exists in the justice system of the United States in the administration of felonies and prison sentences for white people and black people based on similar crimes committed. I also conducted a number of personal qualitative interviews from black people at various metropolitan urban leagues in my state. You know what?

It's not fair.

That was the conclusion of my journal article. And there is enough current academic literature on the subject to keep any doubters busy for a long time. Go to your library and and use a academic journal search engine to read more about this. There is an unequal application of justice afforded to white people and black people in this country. But just because justice isn't always applied equally doesn't mean that every time a legal issue arises between a black person and a white person that the black person is automatically vindicated and the white person is automatically guilty, particularly in an incident like this.

There was a particularly thought provoking article I read in one of my law classes 2 or 3 years ago about trends in black insurgency in metropolitan areas, and the conclusions of the writers were essentially that first you need to look at a demographic racial breakdown of the population of the US and consider that about 70% of the population is white and a little more than 10% is black. When you look at the number of crimes committed adjusted according to the proportion of the black population vs the white population in the country (that's a very important adjustment to make... raw figures will give an inflated figure because it doesn't account for the fact that there are 7 white people for 1 black person), black people are convicted of a much higher percentage of crimes that white people. The big caveat with this, that the authors admitted, was that white people are not arrested as frequently as black people and are able to plead down to lesser offenses much more often than black people. The disparity between the racial crime rates is large enough however, that the authors still believe black people commit more crimes than white people.

Why?

They went back to the original premise of my journal article - the justice system in this country is unfairly harsh towards black people and the unequal enforcement of formal social control in black societies tends to take away their sense of agency and legitimizes their perception of law enforcement and the judicial system. And it reinforces a general negative attitude towards white people since they are "getting away" with more than they are, legally. And unfortunately, that tends to be true.

But back to this case, and my original point, lol. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of history behind a "thuggish" dress style that gives white, black, and even purple people reason to feel uneasy in its presence. It's not about the race. If a white guy was acting sketchy in a neighborhood that had been having a high number of robberies and was dressed "thuggish", I bet the average person would have the same reaction they would have if he was black. If the black guy were dressed in a very clean cut way and wasn't acting sketchy, do you really think the average person would get all bent out of shape about the fact that a clean cut black guy was outside walking around? Those people have issues. The people who react uneasily to the thuggish guys, black, white, or purple do not.

Finally, let's take a look at who this Zimmerman guy actually is.

He's a 28 year old half Hispanic guy. So he's not technically "white". He is part of a minority group even smaller than the blacks. He's also 28. "Coon" was a word that was a part of my dad's generation's vernacular, not his. I've only heard that word a few times in my life, and it's always been from old people. I'll bet most people in their 20's may be able to figure out what it means based on its contextual use, but many may not have ever heard it before. Let's not forget that Zimmerman also mentors young black kids on the weekends free of charge and even invited a black man to live with him when he experienced financial hardship. He's a registered Democrat, probably voted for Obama. It seems like the entire argument for Zimmerman being a racist hinges on the idea that he used the word "coon". First, does the caricature this paragraph paints describe the sort of guy who would use a racial slur, especially against a black person? Why would a racist let a black guy who was down on his luck live with him for a while and spend his weekend free time mentoring black kids? It doesn't make any sense!

No one will ever know with absolute assurance whether or not he said "coon". The audio is too garbled. If there's a detail in a painting you can't make out, increasing your focus on that detail doesn't help distinguish what it is. Instead, zoom out and see if the rest of the painting gives any useful context to what the detail may be. In this case, I think you have all you need to make a rational assumption.

[Jaylan]

Plenty of people know what the word Coon means and use it in the present day. I see stupid little kids saying it on youtube comments all the time.

I used to hear that crap on Xbox live from freaking preteens and teenagers. I even had someone call me it before back in high school and almost whipped his ass for it.

So lets not be silly and think its simply a throwback term thats never used anymore. I remember when I was younger and Id play Tony Hawk Underground online. I obviously made my skater black, and of course heard the N word and C word from backwoods idiots almost daily.

And just because someone does something nice for a few black people, does not mean they cant be prejudiced. My grandmother is civil and nice to some white folks, but shes definitely a bit prejudiced. But I understand she grew up in a different time and doesnt trust them much.

The whole idea of bringing up who Zimmerman mentored in the past is like when racists say "my best friend is black". Having friends of any racial group does not mean a person cannot still show bias against that group.

Btw, when it comes to looking at crime rates among races...people need to ask "why" questions? Why the disparity? There are many, but ill highlight a couple. One reason is socioeconomics. Poverty perpetuates crime, and there is a far higher percentage of Latinos and Blacks living in the lower class, hence more crime. In more affluent minority communities, there is less crime. Especially in minority filled suburbs.

Also, one needs to realize that statistics are often manufactured by profiling and bias in law enforcement and the courts. There are just as many suburban white kids smoking weed as there as inner city minorities doing it...but obviously police presence will be different in the areas. If you are on the look out for a specific type of person, it pads the stats in a way that reinforces the already existing profiling behavior. So its like this: does the bad behavior create the profiling behavior, or does the profiling and bias create the stats and bad behavior?

Does anyone follow? At the end of the day, if you start to control for all factors, and even things out across the board...crime rates would drop significantly and even out. Once people also start getting a sense of community, the crime rate drops even more. The problem is that historically, social and economic lines were drawn in the sand based on race, color, and ethnicity....and it takes a long time to overcome centuries of racial and ethnic discrimination all over the world. Its not just for black and latinos, but also for darker Indians in India, certain ethnic groups in China, and for middle easterners who try to make a new life for themselves in the West.

P.S. - Hispanics are not a smaller minority groups than African Americans in this country. Check your statistics. Also, hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. You can be ANY race and be hispanic. Latin America is as racially divided as the US is, if not more so.

P.P.S. - Since when is a hoodie and shorts thuggish? Especially if its raining outside. Sounds like normal attire in the humid Florida rain. Now if Martin wasnt wearing thuggish attire the night of his killing, what exactly made him so suspicious to Zimmerman? My point is that I feel race does play into how people react to someone regardless of their outfits. Outfits will play a role, but race is still its own factor.

[Danger]

Good points Jaylan,

I think it also bears noting that the black community is not hard enough on it's troublemakers.

I mean, if I was suspended from school for ten days, my parents would have shut me in my room. I certainly would not have been allowed to visit family or go out to watch basketball. Hell, I can think of maybe one kid in my whole childhood who would not have been punished severely for that.

This is another reason why I have a huge problem with the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. They go for the easy race-baiting, but do not hold the black community responsible for their own behavior. In doing so, they are part of the problem. Hell, when Bill Cosby called out the community, he caught a lot of flack for it.

[Jaylan]

Actually, some black people are hard on the trouble makers, and others are not. It really depends on the person. Part of the reason some black folks wont be as hard on the troublemakers is because they see less evil in the trouble makers then they see in law enforcement. Some black folks are raised not to trust law enforcement. I was raise in a racially mixed middle class neighborhood, so I wasnt instilled with such a belief, but I have friends who grew up in the hood who were taught it.

Why were they taught not to trust the police? Well simply look at the Rampart Scandal of the LAPD in the 90s, or the recent Danziger scancal in Louisiana. Crap like that makes people trust the bangers more for protection than the police, and it shouldnt be that way. People start thinking they get better opportunities for a decent home life from falling in line with the bangers instead of law enforcement.

It creates a vicious cycle in those areas, where police profile the residents, and the residents profile the police. Nothing gets better when theres no trust amongst citizens are law enforcement. But that isnt all black folks. Many are truly trying to keep their family on the right path, but its easy to get sucked in if you grow up and live in a chaotic environment. But it all takes time. As decades go buy, more minorities of all backgrounds are rising out of poverty and going to school.

Next, about Trayvon being suspended...what exactly does that have to do with the case? The kid smokes weed just like MANY kids all across the country do. It says nothing about his character. Apparently the kid was an honor roll athlete as well. He just happened to be mischievous. A lot of high school kids are. But to demonize him for something a wide variety of kids do--from the best to the worst behaved kids--makes no sense to me.

All that matters about either of Martins or Zimmermans past is if they had a history of violent behavior. Martin did not. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman has a history of police assault and domestic violence, and thats say a lot more about him than anything weve heard about Trayvon. And Trayvon was simply watching the Allstar game with his brother and went to the store. Not every kid gets super punished when he gets in trouble at school. Many simply dont get to see their friends or hang out outside of the house.

Now for everything people may dislike about Jesse and Al...those two were needed in making this case a national story. Without them, this case would have been swept up under the rug and probably would have never had a chance to get to trial despite the obvious necessity for a trial. Theres plenty of evidence here for one, the lead detective shouldnt of been overstepped, and the Sanford PD and state DA shouldnt have flubbed on this.

Remember, Jesse and Al werent on this story from day one. Nobody was....it was a couple to a few weeks later when the feds became aware of this, that "Law & Order" actually started going into affect. So I commend those two for their presence and helping get the word out. You think they are race baiting this case? I call bull on that. Its not race baiting to acknowledge the obvious racial component that exists in this case. They arent making things up out of thin are. Based on some things in this case, it seems to many, many people that Trayvon was racially profiled.

An please dont speak about things you do not know. Jesse and Al speak out against black on black crime, but you wouldnt know about that because those are the kind of things the media will not show nationally. My father has met Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Sharpton has spoke at my fathers church. I may not agree with everything Jesse and Al do, but they do reach out to the black community and urge us to come together and stop the violence. But as I said, black on black crime and stories about raising up the black community arent juicy stories for the media. If black controlled the media, youd hear more about it. Many black folks dont like Al and Jesse too much...hell I wish Cornell West and Bill Cosby would be seen as our national leaders...but Jesse and Al do bring attention to some cases that need it, despite bringing the wrong attention to some cases that dont need it.

Lastly, let this quoted post sink in for folks here. A buddy on another forum I frequent wrote it in a discussion of this case. It was in reply to someone bringing up the unrelated black on black crime issue, when we here are trying to talk about the facts of this case. So for future posters...do not deflect solid points being made by trying to bring up non-related topics.

But again, even more importantly Knight, why is this really an issue in the case of Trayvon Martin? I can understand why it's an issue relative to the media coverage, but none of this should change how we feel about the facts of this case. Why point out black on black crime? Why point out deadbeat fathers? Why point out any of this stuff? It's a distraction.

The point was, the comment has nothing to do with the case....it has nothing to do with what we're discussing, but it did succeed in derailing the discussion and taking this from a discussion about real issues that affect all of us (like are public officials doing what we pay them to do), and instead turned it into a page or so of comments about how a lot of black men are bad fathers. You got suckered into it - pretty easily. The comment shows how easily people can be distracted from the real issue here, which is a dead teenager, a sh*tty police "investigation", and an absolute nutty bit of state legislation that apparently comes dangerously close to encouraging this sort of High Plains Drifter behavior among the general population.

It just shows how easily this sort of case can be manipulated to fit perceptions. Sheesh, some reporter asks President Obama a question about the case and the moment he finishes his first sentence, he's already being accused of exploiting the case for political gain. It's not enough that some whites want a servile black population; the nation's first black president has to be a mute as well, it would seem. Is he not allowed to comment?

[penkitten]

i am outraged and angry about what happened to this boy who had a future and potential and instead has suffered a painful death on a street with a girlfriend listening to his murder and his skittles in his pocket.
i'm pissed that this zimmerman freak is loose on the streets.
in my state, if i self appointed myself to stalk out people to hurt them based on what i didn't like about their appearance, it would be considered a hate crime and i would go to jail. why isn't he?
honestly, he needs to be in an institution wearing a white straight jacket for being as freggin insane as he is.
i do not want that animal loose on the streets. he will hurt others. he will kill again. he has serial killer traits except for his big mouth part.

[Warrior74]

I'm just surprised the mods haven't locked this thread yet. That's pretty much a miracle for anything approaching a racial discussion on SS.

[Quiksilver]

Originally Posted by Warrior74

I'm just surprised the mods haven't locked this thread yet. That's pretty much a miracle for anything approaching a racial discussion on SS.

I don't lock threads unless they're clearly overboard or I receive a few legitimate complaints.

--

I'm concerned about the perspective of the event from some members... To me there seems to be a disconnect in the logic where walking behind someone (stalking by english definition, not legal definition) is illegal, and that Martins physical attack on Zimmerman is thus justified.

I am also concerned about the age factor. He was 17.

In Afghanistan, 10 year old kids are recruited to throw grenades/shoot at NATO forces. Avoiding the politics of the situation, I am merely illustrating that even children can do great/lethal/deadly violence, and the attackers age should not be a factor in the ability/Right of the victim of the attack to defend themselves.

If a 10 year old runs at me with a katana and an angry expression on his face, I don't care how bright a future he has in front of him or how cute his yearbook photo is, I'm going to defend myself even with lethal force if necessary.

--

For those who accuse Zimmerman of stalking, please point out which definition is pertinent to the discussion:

1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.

1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

--

And a legal definition:

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

[augmented by case law]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Jaylan

Next, about Trayvon being suspended...what exactly does that have to do with the case? The kid smokes weed just like MANY kids all across the country do. It says nothing about his character. Apparently the kid was an honor roll athlete as well. He just happened to be mischievous. A lot of high school kids are. But to demonize him for something a wide variety of kids do--from the best to the worst behaved kids--makes no sense to me.

Dude,

Lose the chip. I am making a point about holding the community accountable, and punishing a teenager for vandalism, I am not defaming him in relation to the case. Half of this thread is not about the case. Again, you are too emotionally involved in this thread to have proper objectivity.

Your judgement on the guilt of Zimmerman is evidence of that.

Originally Posted by Jaylan

All that matters about either of Martins or Zimmermans past is if they had a history of violent behavior. Martin did not. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman has a history of police assault and domestic violence, and thats say a lot more about him than anything weve heard about Trayvon. And Trayvon was simply watching the Allstar game with his brother and went to the store. Not every kid gets super punished when he gets in trouble at school. Many simply dont get to see their friends or hang out outside of the house.

I agree in regards to the case. In regards to consequences for the community, I highly disagree.

You think being grounded for a ten day suspension is "super punished"?

Honestly, how many people here would have been allowed to watch a game and go out to the store immediately following a ten day suspension from school for graffiti?

How many here would let their children do the same?

As for Shaprton and Jackson, I have never seen much from them regarding black on black crime. Hell, even the former NAACP leader is calling them out on their race-baiting.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/fo...rayvon-martin/

If Sharpton and Jackson are holding the community responsible, then where was the apology for the Duke Rape case? Where was the admonishment of the accuser, Crystal Magnum? Or what of Sharpton and Tawana Brawley? He didn't even pay his share of the defamation lawsuit he lost regarding her lies, even though he was clearly wrong.

Despite your assertations, evidence and history do not paint a pretty picture for the good-will of Sharpton and his ability to hold the community accountable. Shparton is out for number one, himself.

[Bible_Belt]

If it can be proven that Zimmerman did anything he did for racial reasons, then he will be convicted of a hate crime or civil rights violation. The reason that we had civil rights law in the first place was to override ridiculous state laws instituting discrimination in the old South. When the state courts wouldn't convict the Klan of murder, the FBI could get them on the civil rights violation for a five-year prison sentence. Like I said earlier, they are going to do the same thing here. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, Fed law trumps state. And when you make the Feds look bad, which is what this case does, they will find someone to put in jail.

[FairShake]

Several people here are talking about the situation as if they witnessed it. None of us know what happened in between the ending of the 911 call and the fight and we shouldn't cast stones like we do.

But as for those claiming if the roles were reversed we would have a different outcome I want to show you a recent case involving a black shooter and an unarmed "white hispanic" victim (who was mentally disabled no less) where the shooter was also not arrested after claiming self defense.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news...eapon-4-4-2012

[Danger]

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

If it can be proven that Zimmerman did anything he did for racial reasons, then he will be convicted of a hate crime or civil rights violation. The reason that we had civil rights law in the first place was to override ridiculous state laws instituting discrimination in the old South. When the state courts wouldn't convict the Klan of murder, the FBI could get them on the civil rights violation for a five-year prison sentence. Like I said earlier, they are going to do the same thing here. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, Fed law trumps state. And when you make the Feds look bad, which is what this case does, they will find someone to put in jail.

Of course, until the Feds or State, County or ANY jurisdiction hold the new black panthers accountable for offering a contract murder, the laws don't much matter.

[SoldMySoul]

Originally Posted by Quiksilver

I don't lock threads unless they're clearly overboard or I receive a few legitimate complaints.

I think you are exercising great judgment in this case/ topic. There are many members quick to point out the guilt of Zimmerman, while down playing that a kid was murdered in cold blood. From what I have read about Zimmerman, he was a pretty decent guy. Helped minorities being one himself and no track record of being a $hithead.

The media keeps showing Travoyn as still a kid. 17 in a lot of states will land your rear end in jail...which means you are old enough/ accountable for your actions. Not to mention, 6 foot 3 is tall and if he would be a hand full for authorities to get a hold of he were "showing out."

I saw yesterday there was a neighbor that wants to remain anonymous backing up Zimmerman's side of the story.

Furthermore, Travoyn had been suspended from school several times; found w/ marijuana in is possession; possessed burglary tools at one point in his life w/ I think 12 rings. This says far from innocent in my opinion. It appeared he was on track to be a real dredge on society.

As a law abiding citizen...are you not allowed to defend yourself? Sure Zimmerman was heavier...but he did not seem to have the weight of fighter/ weightlifter. There are people, young and old that will hurt you. From all ostensible appearances it seems only thing Zimmerman did wrong which has caused this tragic event was be overly concerned about goings on in his hood.

From LE point of view... You see teenagers about Travoyn's age walking around a place of business, apt complex or anywhere at odd hours, you use your common sense and say, "these kids are up to no good." It was not late when this incident went down, but I am merely making a point. Zimmerman seemed to only want to keep his hood safe.

This is a racial issue for a lot of people. I just so happen to remove that element and try viewing in a partial manner. Take your feelings out of it and replace it with logic.

Now what the city of Sanford and possibly elsewhere are faced with is extreme problems exacerbated by the news media!!!! Let the evidence speak and use care in how you react from it.

This was just NOT a kid... regardless of right or wrong. Zimmerman is being convicted before a trial. It would be wrong to convict him only because "the community wanted it" and in fact was innocent.

[don't]

I think that graffitists should suffer a broken hand, and paint can variants should be shot on site. Who the hell do they think they ARE, defacing other's property, anyway?

Originally Posted by Bible_Belt

If it can be proven that Zimmerman did anything he did for racial reasons, then he will be convicted of a hate crime or civil rights violation.

A hate crime is the most ridiculous concept to ever emerge from modern law. What violent crime ISN'T committed because of an underlying motive of evil hatred? Do you think people commit first degree murder because of love?

The concept of a "hate crime" is very disturbing to me because its implication is that certain predeterminations make a crime worse than it otherwise would have been. It also presupposes that whoever or whatever is charged with determining whether a hate crime in fact occurred is somehow able to enter the psyche of the suspected criminal and determine if he or she did commit the crime out of a motivation of hate. The government cannot read minds.

Murder is wrong. It is not worse if the killer was of one race and the victim was of another. What in the world sort of precedent does the government create when it adjudicates like that? That the value of a minority's or a woman's or homosexual's life or well being is somehow higher than that of someone who doesn't meet the group criterion the government sets for hate crime? And what sort of message does that send to to people similar to the person the hate crime was committed against? Why do they need stronger legal "protection" or whatever word you want to call it?

It's one of the most disturbing concepts I've seen people accept en masse

[don't]

yep, it's racist on the face of it, actually. Like the idea that blacks NEED to have preferential hiring, school acceptance, etc.

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by Danger

Dude,

Lose the chip. I am making a point about holding the community accountable, and punishing a teenager for vandalism, I am not defaming him in relation to the case. Half of this thread is not about the case. Again, you are too emotionally involved in this thread to have proper objectivity.

Your judgement on the guilt of Zimmerman is evidence of that.

What chip? I am looking at this through an objective lense. You arent. What matters is a history of violent behavior...like I said...Martin has none...Zimmerman has a history. The twos past arent really comparable.

How do you know the kid wasnt being punished by his parents for the suspension? Its not the communities job to hold him accountable and its very possible he was already being punished. Just because he was allowed to go to the store doesnt mean he wasnt being punished by his folks. You are the one who doesnt seem to be able to be objective if you cannot notice the difference in the past of Martin and Zimmerman.

And again, remove race from this and study the facts of the case if you want to talk about whos objective or not. The "community" and who it holds accountable in other crimes has nothing to do with this case. Stick to the facts of THIS case.

I agree in regards to the case. In regards to consequences for the community, I highly disagree.

You think being grounded for a ten day suspension is "super punished"?

Honestly, how many people here would have been allowed to watch a game and go out to the store immediately following a ten day suspension from school for graffiti?

How many here would let their children do the same?

As for Shaprton and Jackson, I have never seen much from them regarding black on black crime. Hell, even the former NAACP leader is calling them out on their race-baiting.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/fo...rayvon-martin/

If Sharpton and Jackson are holding the community responsible, then where was the apology for the Duke Rape case? Where was the admonishment of the accuser, Crystal Magnum? Or what of Sharpton and Tawana Brawley? He didn't even pay his share of the defamation lawsuit he lost regarding her lies, even though he was clearly wrong.

Despite your assertations, evidence and history do not paint a pretty picture for the good-will of Sharpton and his ability to hold the community accountable. Shparton is out for number one, himself.

Im saying many parents arent going to punish their kids the way you think they should for a ten day suspension. Its possible he was already punished. You cannot say he was or wasnt. Ive known many kids whove gotten in trouble and were allowed to watch tv with their family but not allowed to hang out with their friends. He was watching the yearly all star game with his bro. Its possible his dad let him watch the game since its once a year and hes doing it with his kid brother. If my kid got in trouble at school but was supposed to do something together with his/her younger sibling, Im not going to punish the younger sibling as well by not letting them watch something they planned to watch together. Especially if its a once a year event. So next topic please.

On Jesse and Al....like I said...YOU would never see anything they say about black on black crime, because YOU arent apart of the black community. And your media doesnt report every single thing these guys talk about. The media only picks up on what they want to pick up. My dad has heard Al speak live and in person at his church and all did talk about black on black crime. You arent in our community so of course youd be ignorant of this and only know what the media tells you. I never said the dude never made mistakes, but hes often been the catalyst for some people who need justice. With his good does come some bad. I acknowledge both sides.

Also, many public figures have a made goofs to go along with their success. Sharpton was instrumental is bringing attention to the Martin case, the Amadou Diallo case, the Sean Bell case, and back int he 90s with the LAPD scandals. This doesnt absolve him of his errors, but a media figure like him is needed when the system tries to sweep their own errors under the rug. Understand the point I am making.

And again....stop deflecting the issues of the case. This isnt about Al, Jesse, or black on black crime. This is about the killing of a 17 yr old kid who was walking home, minding his own business. The other stuff you bring up is simply smoke to turn our vision away from the facts of this case.

[Jaylan]

Originally Posted by don't

yep, it's racist on the face of it, actually. Like the idea that blacks NEED to have preferential hiring, school acceptance, etc.

The purpose of rights laws for minority groups, (be they blacks, latinos, women, gays, muslims, etc) is to provide opportunities to those who might not otherwise have them thanks to the good ole boy system.

Read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html

Without rights laws, this would worsen. Hell, I have Asian friends who said their callbacks increased when they made their first name more anglicized on their resume. Also, Kal Penn...the actor from Harold & Kumar, Van Wilder, and House...his real name is Kalpen Modi. Once he changed his name on his portfolio to Kal Penn...he received an instant jump in call backs.

So its not a figment of minority imagination that discrimination happens.