Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

I find it unnerving someone quotes Bill Maher.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I don't think it exists nearly to the level it did 20-30 years ago and I think it has dropped below the line of the African American community using it as an excuse. There is just too much information/communication/transperency in our society to allow this to happen very often anymore, regardless of intent. TVs in the courtroom, cell phone cameras, twitter, police car dashboard cameras, ect. Sorry Tim. You and your friends in the African American community are living in the past.

But Zimms own defense lawyer said after the trial that the racism against blacks in the judiciary system and laws is irrefutable.

He also said that it wasnt a factor with Zimmerman personal decision making in this incident.

And that apart from his client, he would work with anyone wanting to work to fix those obvious inequities.

I disagree. I think that's mostly past. If anything, it's more due to lack of money (ie. poor defense lawyer) than color of skin.

But cops arrest 'em a greater rate then other other races who all have the same proclivity for whatever transgression transpired.

And that has nothing to do with a courtroom or lawyers... which of course is another problem. But even then, they get longer sentences.

Are you saying in the bold that a young white or hispanic male is just as likely to commit a violent crime as a young black male? What color is the sky in your world?

I'm saying, as an example, whites and blacks both smoke marijuana at the same rate.

Yet blacks get arrested 5 times more often and convicted about 3.5 times more often and serve longer sentences (tougher punishment) when convicted.

And this holds true in many other crimes and legal matters. Like home foreclosures.

Which is even what Zimmermans lawyer was saying he wanted to help fix.

I had no idea that smoking marijuana was such a violent crime.

 

[identikit]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

How selective of you.

On the contrary. If I was being more selective, I would have remembered her name.

As usual, you pick and choose.

 

[jon_mx]

Is it racist to remember the name of the white male but not the black female? Or is Tim just gay?

 

[Joe McGee]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

Wouldn't you if you had the opportunity?

If you're creeping the Playboy Mansion you ain't doing it right.

And the way to do it right is?

 

[identikit]

Is it racist to remember the name of the white male but not the black female? Or is Tim just gay?

I know it's something.

I'm sure of it.

 

[timschochet]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

 

[cstu]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

I don't buy your argument, Tim. Even white kids with hoodies who look at people's houses are suspicious.

 

[jon_mx]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

So let's just assume he was racially profiling, despite not one grain of evidence to suggest it.

 

[Christo]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

I don't buy your argument, Tim. Even white kids with hoodies who look at people's houses are suspicious.

It doesn't fit the profile. Oh, sorry. People like tim don't profile.

 

[Rayderr]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

I think one can conclude that if Trayvon had been using an umbrella, this whole situation would've been different. After all, thieves don't normally use umbrellas. And Trayvon's skin color would still be black. So maybe Zimmerman is just prejudiced against people who don't use umbrellas in the rain.

 

[jon_mx]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

I don't buy your argument, Tim. Even white kids with hoodies who look at people's houses are suspicious.

If I were wandering through a unfamiliar neighborhood looking at houses, it would not alarm me one bit that the residents look at me suspiciously. I am more than baffled why anyone would assume its racism.

 

[Billy Bats]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Even with all the facts pointing towards GZ doing his job as neighborhood watch, the recent trouble in his neighborhood and his history of relationships with minorities, you still hold on to the racism angle? Why, just out of pure stubbornness or the failure to admit that your original view may just be(and most likely is) wrong? The non-racist folks have provided backup for our beliefs, and all you give us for your side is supposition. It's quite laughable and ignorant.

 

[identikit]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Even with all the facts pointing towards GZ doing his job as neighborhood watch, the recent trouble in his neighborhood and his history of relationships with minorities, you still hold on to the racism angle? Why, just out of pure stubbornness or the failure to admit that your original view may just be(and most likely is) wrong? The non-racist folks have provided backup for our beliefs, and all you give us for your side is supposition. It's quite laughable and ignorant.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

 

[eurotrashman]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

In my words, it is a well earned reputation.

Good to know

 

[Politician Spock]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

And you support government spying on its citizens.

I guess if you are going to be out in left field on one issue, you might as well take up residence there for all issues.

 

[Christo]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

In my words, it is a well earned reputation.

Good to know

“There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life,” Jesse Jackson said several years ago, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

 

[cstu]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

In my words, it is a well earned reputation.

Good to know

“There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life,” Jesse Jackson said several years ago, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

 

[cstu]

I googled that quote and found this interesting article about racial profiling:


The Color of Suspicion

Why a Cop Profiles

This is what a cop might tell you in a moment of reckless candor: in crime fighting, race matters. When asked, most cops will declare themselves color blind. But watch them on the job for several months, and get them talking about the way policing is really done, and the truth will emerge, the truth being that cops, white and black, profile.

Here's why, they say. African-Americans commit a disproportionate percentage of the types of crimes that draw the attention of the police. Blacks make up 12 percent of the population, but accounted for 58 percent of all carjackers between 1992 and 1996. (Whites accounted for 19 percent.) Victim surveys -- and most victims of black criminals are black -- indicate that blacks commit almost 50 percent of all robberies.

Blacks and Hispanics are widely believed to be the blue-collar backbone of the country's heroin- and cocaine-distribution networks. Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 make up 1.1 percent of the country's population, yet commit more than 28 percent of its homicides. Reason, not racism, cops say, directs their attention.

Cops, white and black, know one other thing: they're not the only ones who profile. Civilians profile all the time -- when they buy a house, or pick a school district, or walk down the street. Even civil rights leaders profile. ''There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life,'' Jesse Jackson said several years ago, ''than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.''

Jackson now says his quotation was ''taken out of context.'' The context, he said, is that violence is the inevitable byproduct of poor education and health care. But no amount of ''context'' matters when you fear that you are about to be mugged.

 

[timschochet]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

 

[Politician Spock]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

 

[timschochet]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

I don't think anyone wants us to have that debate in this thread.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

The question I asked wasn't supposed to be difficult. I think it's obvious that it would have been wrong for Zimmerman to assume, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good.

It's the implicit follow-up question that's supposed to be difficult. Why would it not be wrong for us to assume, based only on supposition, that Zimmerman was up to no good (i.e., that he was doing racial profiling)?

 

[renesauz]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

The question I asked wasn't supposed to be difficult. I think it's obvious that it would have been wrong for Zimmerman to assume, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good.

It's the implicit follow-up question that's supposed to be difficult. Why would it not be wrong for us to assume, based only on supposition, that Zimmerman was up to no good (i.e., that he was doing racial profiling)?

Good question. But I think Tim was at least honest here in acknowledging that racial profiling might actually be effective.

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

 

[Politician Spock]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

I don't think anyone wants us to have that debate in this thread.

We don't have to. You've already established you think it's okay for the government to spy on citizens because it's effective in fighting crime. I've already established I don't think it's okay, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

Yet BOTH you and I believe it's not okay to racial profile, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

That means one of us is a hypocrite, and it ain't me.

 

[Christo]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

Technically, it wasn't a public street.

 

[renesauz]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

Agreed.

I'll also stipulate that that sucks if you happen to be an honest black youth without ill intent. It isn't fair to them, but blaming that on society at large or claiming that clutching the purse tighter even remotely equates to prejudice or racism is a mistake.

What's not a mistake is the neighborhood watch keeping an eye on an unfamiliar black kid in his neighborhood a few minutes longer than he might have another kid. The funny thing is that TMs history suggests he was worthy of having someone keep a closer eye on him.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

Technically, it wasn't a public street.

And there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman approach Martin. Zimmerman says Martin approached him and that is consistant with Didi's testimony.

 

[Christo]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

Technically, it wasn't a public street.

And there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman approach Martin. Zimmerman says Martin approached him and that is consistant with Didi's testimony.

I don't need your help.

 

[parasaurolophus]

What is the over/under on how many times Tim will quit this thread?

 

[The Kerminator]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

 

[jon_mx]

What is the over/under on how many times Tim will quit this thread?

Farve

 

[Joe McGee]

∞

 

[The Commish]

Best I can tell....this has turned into a contest of who can be the most willfully ignorant to their cause. Tim vs jon.....the grudge match. I didn't think jon had a chance until Obama made his comments. Now the flood gates are open baby!!!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

Actually, most people do exactly what you're attributing to tim here. Very few people start with facts and form a conclusion. Most people start with a bias - media formed or otherwise - and then look for facts that validate their view.

 

[Kevrunner]

I based my opinion that this wasn't anything to do about race on what is publicly known about GZ's life history. Can't believe Obama's remarks yesterday, just awful. But, I do feel GZ deserved to be convicted of manslaughter, but only If TM wasn't aware that GZ was carrying a firearm. I see no way TM would have gotten into a physical altercation with GZ if he knew that he had a gun. There is a big responsibility where you are carrying a concealed weapon and you have to do everything possible to avoid using it and if GZ didn't make TM aware, then he failed his responsibility in this case. GZ wasn't being robbed, he wasn't attacked in his car. It just really bothers me now, I didn't give it much thought before, that TM wasn't aware of the firearm. I haven't read or heard any evidence that stated he was knew that GZ had a gun. If TM was aware of the gun prior to getting into the physical altercation, then this wouldn't be manslaughter, in my opinion.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I based my opinion that this wasn't anything to do about race on what is publicly known about GZ's life history. Can't believe Obama's remarks yesterday, just awful. But, I do feel GZ deserved to be convicted of manslaughter, but only If TM wasn't aware that GZ was carrying a firearm. I see no way TM would have gotten into a physical altercation with GZ if he knew that he had a gun. There is a big responsibility where you are carrying a concealed weapon and you have to do everything possible to avoid using it and if GZ didn't make TM aware, then he failed his responsibility in this case. GZ wasn't being robbed, he wasn't attacked in his car. It just really bothers me now, I didn't give it much thought before, that TM wasn't aware of the firearm. I haven't read or heard any evidence that stated he was knew that GZ had a gun. If TM was aware of the gun prior to getting into the physical altercation, then this wouldn't be manslaughter, in my opinion.

That logic is flawed, did you want GZ to draw his weapon as soon as he got out of his car? Or maybe you expected him to draw as soon as TM asked him if he has a problem? Both are pretty bad suggestions. If instead you think GZ should have announced he was armed I see that hindsight advice no different than people saying GZ should have announced he was neighborhood watch, TM never gave him the opportunity before sucker punching him.

 

[Joe McGee]

It's pretty sad that Sabryna Fulton and Benjamin Crump gave this interview saying that the jury only needed to consider the evidence and after they lost they are all over the nation playing the race card. I can't imagine how she is suffering, but to race bait after this interview is a disgrace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC8y09PaxSY

 

[timschochet]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

I don't think anyone wants us to have that debate in this thread.

We don't have to. You've already established you think it's okay for the government to spy on citizens because it's effective in fighting crime. I've already established I don't think it's okay, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

Yet BOTH you and I believe it's not okay to racial profile, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

That means one of us is a hypocrite, and it ain't me.

There is, for me, a huge distinction between crime and terrorism.

 

[timschochet]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

If you have truly spent time reading me in this thread (or in other threads for that matter) I don't think this is something you can accuse me of. From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have reacted to facts as they came in, without attempting to pre-judge them. I stated very early on that I would vote to acquit George ZImmerman if I was on the jury and I never wavered from that.

I certainly did not have any preconceived theory that the jury didn't understand manslaughter. When I heard some people make the argument, I found it convincing. Simple as that. It did not match what I previously thought about the case, or about the jurors in particular.

 

[Mister CIA]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

If you have truly spent time reading me in this thread (or in other threads for that matter) I don't think this is something you can accuse me of. From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have reacted to facts as they came in, without attempting to pre-judge them. I stated very early on that I would vote to acquit George ZImmerman if I was on the jury and I never wavered from that.

I certainly did not have any preconceived theory that the jury didn't understand manslaughter. When I heard some people make the argument, I found it convincing. Simple as that. It did not match what I previously thought about the case, or about the jurors in particular.

Please tell us more about you.

 

[Joe McGee]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

If you have truly spent time reading me in this thread (or in other threads for that matter) I don't think this is something you can accuse me of. From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have reacted to facts as they came in, without attempting to pre-judge them. I stated very early on that I would vote to acquit George ZImmerman if I was on the jury and I never wavered from that.

I certainly did not have any preconceived theory that the jury didn't understand manslaughter. When I heard some people make the argument, I found it convincing. Simple as that. It did not match what I previously thought about the case, or about the jurors in particular.

Granted, I haven't been in this thread the whole time but it sure seems like you pre-judged this case as racist on Zimmerman's part despite all the evidence. I don't think you have reacted to the facts at all. You've buried your head in the sand. My views on this case took a sharp turn.

 

[timschochet]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Bingo Tim. That's your problem with most discussions you have here. You have a preconceived theory and then you go looking for "facts" or experts to back you up. Most reasonable people look at the facts first and then form a conclusion based on that.

If you have truly spent time reading me in this thread (or in other threads for that matter) I don't think this is something you can accuse me of. From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have reacted to facts as they came in, without attempting to pre-judge them. I stated very early on that I would vote to acquit George ZImmerman if I was on the jury and I never wavered from that.

I certainly did not have any preconceived theory that the jury didn't understand manslaughter. When I heard some people make the argument, I found it convincing. Simple as that. It did not match what I previously thought about the case, or about the jurors in particular.

Granted, I haven't been in this thread the whole time but it sure seems like you pre-judged this case as racist on Zimmerman's part despite all the evidence. I don't think you have reacted to the facts at all. You've buried your head in the sand. My views on this case took a sharp turn.

Again not at all accurate and it's starting to annoy me to no end that I keep having to clarify myself in this thread. So, for a last time: I don't know if Zimmerman is racist or not. There are times I thought he was, but a lot of evidence has made me rethink that. He's probably not. Whether he is or not, I still think he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night, which I think was wrong. But that in itself doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter. I believe he is guilty of manslaughter for reasons which I have argued in this thread.

If you guys disagree with me on this, fine. But if you want to argue it further, save your breath. I'm not going to argue it anymore. If you guys want to believe that I've "buried my head in the sand", that's fine too. But I don't believe that I, or the media, or Obama has fanned the flames of anger over racism and this case. The flames were there already, and it's because of a pattern of racism against black youths that some of you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the real problem is in the "assume" part. There's a pretty clear line, if sometimes fine, between taking a closer look at someone because of their appearance or race, and assuming they are trouble before having evidence of such. It's also a mistake to assume that anyone who crosses that line is automatically a racist (although someone who routinely crosses it certainly provides evidence of such).

I think it also matters what you do with the assumption. If the result of your profiling is that you clutch your purse a bit tighter on an elevator, that's one thing; if the result is that you approach somebody and hassle him about what he's doing on a public street, that's quite another IMO.

Technically, it wasn't a public street.

And there is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman approach Martin. Zimmerman says Martin approached him and that is consistant with Didi's testimony.

I don't need your help.

Well, I turn tricks above the rim while you're huffing and puffing under the basket.

 

[identikit]

Again not at all accurate and it's starting to annoy me to no end that I keep having to clarify myself in this thread. So, for a last time: I don't know if Zimmerman is racist or not. There are times I thought he was, but a lot of evidence has made me rethink that. He's probably not. Whether he is or not, I still think he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night, which I think was wrong. But that in itself doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter. I believe he is guilty of manslaughter for reasons which I have argued in this thread.

If you guys disagree with me on this, fine. But if you want to argue it further, save your breath. I'm not going to argue it anymore. If you guys want to believe that I've "buried my head in the sand", that's fine too. But I don't believe that I, or the media, or Obama has fanned the flames of anger over racism and this case. The flames were there already, and it's because of a pattern of racism against black youths that some of you refuse to acknowledge.

R-r-r-r-r-ight.....

 

[otello]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

I don't think anyone wants us to have that debate in this thread.

We don't have to. You've already established you think it's okay for the government to spy on citizens because it's effective in fighting crime. I've already established I don't think it's okay, despite it being effective in fighting crime.Yet BOTH you and I believe it's not okay to racial profile, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

That means one of us is a hypocrite, and it ain't me.

There is, for me, a huge distinction between crime and terrorism.

I'm not seeing the difference.

 

[Politician Spock]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Maurile, no offense because youre among the people here I respect the most- but I have discussed my reasons endlessly in this thread for believing that Zimmerman was racial profiling and that had Martin been white this whole situation would have been different. Many people disagree with me- mostly the same people who defend Zimmermans actions that night. I'm not going to go through it all again. In the end it's only supposition one way or another: none of us except GZ knows what he was thinking.

Let's say that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Would that be a bad thing?

Why would it be wrong for Zimmerman to have assumed, based only on supposition, that Martin was up to no good?

This is a complicated question. I'm on my iPhone for the rest of the evening and I can't give you the attention it deserves. Most African-Americans believe that racial profiling demeans them and degrades them as people, even if it's effective in fighting crime, so it's not worth it.

But spying on Americans is okay, because it's effective in fighting crime?

I don't think anyone wants us to have that debate in this thread.

We don't have to. You've already established you think it's okay for the government to spy on citizens because it's effective in fighting crime. I've already established I don't think it's okay, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

Yet BOTH you and I believe it's not okay to racial profile, despite it being effective in fighting crime.

That means one of us is a hypocrite, and it ain't me.

There is, for me, a huge distinction between crime and terrorism.

So now you believe DUI stops are not okay (unless you believe drunk people are terrorists).

 

[avoiding injuries]

But I don't believe that I, or the media, or Obama has fanned the flames of anger over racism and this case. The flames were there already, and it's because of a pattern of racism against black youths that some of you refuse to acknowledge.

Of course you don't feel that way. You agree with it, despite all the evidence that is contrary to your (and the media's) belief. Obama is a completely different beast, but proof that he fanned the flames is that it was enough to get you back in this thread after you were already out.