Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

I thought that Martin's mother was full of crap with her "disconnect" talk in the A360 interview. I'd like to apologize to her. Based on this thread, she seems to be spot on. Makes me sad.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I've heard white people say,many times in fact, that theirs Black people ...and then theirs N#ggers....its like saying theirs white people then theirs white trash...either way its profiling a race

First, it's "there's white people then there's white trash." And second, it's true.

I funked spelling

 

[Runningman]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think its important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that that doesnt go away.I dont want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And its inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Where is the prejudice here?

Seriously?

Edit: Sorry, I jumped back into the thread at the point of my last post. I see now that a bunch of people have already tried in vain to explain this to tim. It's highly unlikely that I'll succeed where so many others have failed, so I'll just let it go.

Could you explain it to me then?

I suppose that you could call it prejudice in a strict sense of the term, but "prejudice" typically involves some negative intent. I don't see a good reason to use a pejorative for something that applies to everyone. It loses it's meaning. Everyone appraises events based on their own experiences and cultural history. We're all prejudice in that sense. The best that we can do is try to get a handle on our how our experiences, culture, and upbringing shape our understanding of the world. And, if we're not ###### people, try to understand other folks through their experiences and their point of view. I think that is exactly what O was doing in his speech. Trying to highlight how the AA community's reaction to the issue was reasonable when considering their historical context and personal experiences. None of us know what happened that night. We're all bringing our own baggage to the table in trying to make sense of it.

This is a measured and intelligent response. Even if you don't think racism is nearly as bad as it was (like me) and you believe the AA community shoots itself in the foot a lot (like me) it is important to realize perception is reality. Action to stamp out the remaining racism is important and trying to explain the "white" position I guess you would call it, if you can assume that there is an overall AA [position?

 

[kentric]

Damn. Some of these posts are just amazing. You guys want me out of this thread, I'm out again. I can't deal with Mr. Two Cents, Max Threshold and those that agree with them. You win guys.

Working through late Friday-early Monday. I'm betting Tim's "second" departure will end quicker than the first and I'll find another of his posts before I catch up to this post. This can be a whole new game. Guess Tim's reversals. haha

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Officer returns from evidence locker with Zimmerman's gun. "Now you be careful with this" he says. "I will" Zimmerman says. They both laugh.

 

[The Commish]

Officer returns from evidence locker with Zimmerman's gun. "Now you be careful with this" he says. "I will" Zimmerman says. They both laugh.

ooooof

 

[Bonzai]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think its important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that that doesnt go away.I dont want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And its inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Where is the prejudice here?

Seriously?

Edit: Sorry, I jumped back into the thread at the point of my last post. I see now that a bunch of people have already tried in vain to explain this to tim. It's highly unlikely that I'll succeed where so many others have failed, so I'll just let it go.

Could you explain it to me then?

I suppose that you could call it prejudice in a strict sense of the term, but "prejudice" typically involves some negative intent. I don't see a good reason to use a pejorative for something that applies to everyone. It loses it's meaning. Everyone appraises events based on their own experiences and cultural history. We're all prejudice in that sense. The best that we can do is try to get a handle on our how our experiences, culture, and upbringing shape our understanding of the world. And, if we're not ###### people, try to understand other folks through their experiences and their point of view. I think that is exactly what O was doing in his speech. Trying to highlight how the AA community's reaction to the issue was reasonable when considering their historical context and personal experiences. None of us know what happened that night. We're all bringing our own baggage to the table in trying to make sense of it.

This is basically right. When somebody brings a particular set of experiences to the table and interprets this particular case in a way that shoe-horns it into their own preconceived narrative, that's prejudice by definition.

In other words, all the stuff that tim quoted about how African Americans have this particular history and so that colors how they view stuff like this is best interpreted as a statement that those folks are prejudiced in this case and not looking at it objectively.

Who has the right view? Who is looking at this objectively?

My point was that everyone does this. You, me, Bill from up the street. You can never get past it. You can only try to account for it and make try to make the best of it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think its important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that that doesnt go away.I dont want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And its inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Where is the prejudice here?

Seriously?

Edit: Sorry, I jumped back into the thread at the point of my last post. I see now that a bunch of people have already tried in vain to explain this to tim. It's highly unlikely that I'll succeed where so many others have failed, so I'll just let it go.

Could you explain it to me then?

I suppose that you could call it prejudice in a strict sense of the term, but "prejudice" typically involves some negative intent. I don't see a good reason to use a pejorative for something that applies to everyone. It loses it's meaning. Everyone appraises events based on their own experiences and cultural history. We're all prejudice in that sense. The best that we can do is try to get a handle on our how our experiences, culture, and upbringing shape our understanding of the world. And, if we're not ###### people, try to understand other folks through their experiences and their point of view. I think that is exactly what O was doing in his speech. Trying to highlight how the AA community's reaction to the issue was reasonable when considering their historical context and personal experiences. None of us know what happened that night. We're all bringing our own baggage to the table in trying to make sense of it.

This is basically right. When somebody brings a particular set of experiences to the table and interprets this particular case in a way that shoe-horns it into their own preconceived narrative, that's prejudice by definition.

In other words, all the stuff that tim quoted about how African Americans have this particular history and so that colors how they view stuff like this is best interpreted as a statement that those folks are prejudiced in this case and not looking at it objectively.

Who has the right view? Who is looking at this objectively?

My point was that everyone does this. You, me, Bill from up the street. You can never get past it. You can only try to account for it and make try to make the best of it.

Maybe, but all of us should have overcoming prejudice as our goal, not wallowing in it.

 

[kentric]

I was just thinking that what this country needs is a bunch of conservative middle-age middle-class+ white men to tell it what's approriate for a discussion about race.

Summing up what I've learned here: Measured and intelligent discussion of why people have different views about the topic of the day from the President = race-baiting. Jojo's videos of cranky old black men railing about young blacks = the only good faith conversation about race.

Thank you, FFA!

I have known Tim and you sir, are no Tim.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

The answer is in between IMO the two extremes of jon and tim. It's naive to think that his race wasn't part of the profile. It's clear it wasn't the initiating factor, but I believe it helped it was part of the "they" Zimmerman made reference to. Is that racial profiling in it's strictest sense? No. With that said, what evidence do you think we have? That Zimmerman dated a black girl? That he did work with minority charities? I'm certainly not poo pooing efforts like that, but I really don't see it as definitive evidence one way or the other as to what he was thinking that night. It's quite possible the recent events in his neighborhood had him thinking very differently in that moment, but that's anyone's guess. The last thing we are left with is the jury, but forgive me if I put little credence into what an all white jury believes with regards to racism.

Again, I don't think it was the driving factor in his decisions, but I think it was an element.

I am not sure what you mean by racial profiling.

Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest).

Zimmerman intial call was not racial profiling since he had no idea what race Martin was until later. If you assume Zimmerman went looking for Martin and the fact he was black was a key factor, maybe that could be construed as racial profiling. But one we do not know for sure Zimmerman even went looking for Martin or looking for an address. And two, even if he did go looking for Martin, there is no evidence to suggest race was a key factor. I don't think by just assuming it might have been some small element to possibly impacting Zimmerman's action that it rises up to the level of racial profiling. At some point you have to put some meat to these words or they are rather meaningless.

I am now 100% confident you are taking the Jo Jo approach with my posts and not even reading them....well done.

I read it, but you want to keep this concept of racial profiling in play even if only means it might have possibly played the smallest role in inconsequential actions or language. IMO, there was no racial profiling involved if the word is going to have any real meaning.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Maybe, but all of us should have overcoming prejudice as our goal, not wallowing in it.

I have a lot of policy goals. Sometimes I need to prioritize some goals over other goals.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

The answer is in between IMO the two extremes of jon and tim. It's naive to think that his race wasn't part of the profile. It's clear it wasn't the initiating factor, but I believe it helped it was part of the "they" Zimmerman made reference to. Is that racial profiling in it's strictest sense? No. With that said, what evidence do you think we have? That Zimmerman dated a black girl? That he did work with minority charities? I'm certainly not poo pooing efforts like that, but I really don't see it as definitive evidence one way or the other as to what he was thinking that night. It's quite possible the recent events in his neighborhood had him thinking very differently in that moment, but that's anyone's guess. The last thing we are left with is the jury, but forgive me if I put little credence into what an all white jury believes with regards to racism.

Again, I don't think it was the driving factor in his decisions, but I think it was an element.

I am not sure what you mean by racial profiling.

Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest).

Zimmerman intial call was not racial profiling since he had no idea what race Martin was until later. If you assume Zimmerman went looking for Martin and the fact he was black was a key factor, maybe that could be construed as racial profiling. But one we do not know for sure Zimmerman even went looking for Martin or looking for an address. And two, even if he did go looking for Martin, there is no evidence to suggest race was a key factor. I don't think by just assuming it might have been some small element to possibly impacting Zimmerman's action that it rises up to the level of racial profiling. At some point you have to put some meat to these words or they are rather meaningless.

I am now 100% confident you are taking the Jo Jo approach with my posts and not even reading them....well done.

I read it, but you want to keep this concept of racial profiling in play even if only means it might have possibly played the smallest role in inconsequential actions or language. IMO, there was no racial profiling involved if the word is going to have any real meaning.

I'm going to say this one more time......read it:

He did NOT racially profile Martin, but it's naive to think that race isn't part of the profile.

 

[Bonzai]

Maybe, but all of us should have overcoming prejudice as our goal, not wallowing in it.

Hrm. I don't see what O said there as a license to wallow in prejudice. The opposite, really. Not sure how else to get it across.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who are able to recognize how their personal experiences and upbringing affect them are much more likely to have a good understanding of the world. People that deny or fail to incorporate these experiences or feelings are usually pretty screwed up.

 

[kentric]

Can't. Stay. Away.

As much as I like to disagree with him (99% of the time) Max Threshold is actually correct here. The Alexander case really is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case. There ought to be severe penalties for firing guns in the presence of children. Given the circumstances of the case , 20 years is way too long, whether she refused to plead or not. But as Max correctly points out, there was a mandatory minimum.

Which brings up yet again another issue: mandatory minimums, whether federal or state, are a terrible idea. Conservatives are always proposing them in order to be "tough on crime", but they lead to injustice. Had Zimmerman been found guilty of manslaughter, he might have faced 30 years in prison. Everyone here knows what I think of Zimmerman's actions that night, but even I think this is too long.

Damn Tim. You didn't even make it through Friday. I gave you credit for holding out at least a day. I feel so... so... betrayed.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Maybe, but all of us should have overcoming prejudice as our goal, not wallowing in it.

Hrm. I don't see what O said there as a license to wallow in prejudice. The opposite, really. Not sure how else to get it across.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who are able to recognize how their personal experiences and upbringing affect them are much more likely to have a good understanding of the world. People that deny or fail to incorporate these experiences or feelings are usually pretty screwed up.

That's not what I took from it at all. I'll re-read it when I get the chance.

 

[The Commish]

Bonzai,

Do you happen to be an inner city counselor by any chance or at the very least work in those types of neighborhoods?

 

[renesauz]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away.I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

These comments are non-controversial to me. What exactly do you have a problem with here?

He's telling them it's okay to see this situation through their skewed vision even though they have no clue what happened that night. They have no idea whether Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black. He's telling them it's okay to assume the situation happened, and the verdict happened solely because Martin is black.

I took it more as his attempt to validate how reasonable it is for people to appraise events based on their personal experiences and/or cultural history.

This is exactly right. And not only that, he's doing the opposite of what Christo is claiming here. He's letting the black community know, albeit gently, that their perceptions about this case may be skewed and not quite truthful based on their experiences rather than the specific case. It is NOT a justifcation of that attitude, it's an attempt to explain it. It's quite brilliant, actually.

I actually agree with Tim on this part. BOs speech was generally pretty good. Unfortunately it does contain a few one-liners that could be taken out of context and used to fuel race-baiting by the media and others who like to do so

 

[jon_mx]

Damn. Some of these posts are just amazing. You guys want me out of this thread, I'm out again. I can't deal with Mr. Two Cents, Max Threshold and those that agree with them. You win guys.

Working through late Friday-early Monday. I'm betting Tim's "second" departure will end quicker than the first and I'll find another of his posts before I catch up to this post. This can be a whole new game. Guess Tim's reversals. haha

Whatever the over/under is for this, put me down for the under.

 

[kentric]

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

So all these points are correct?

1) The fight was on the very walkway to the Martin house.

2) Zimm "said" he hadnt gone onto that walkway until after the fight started.

3) Its about 70 yards to the door. About 15 yards from the walkway Zimm "said" he was on when talking to police.

4) His brother is in the house.

I don't believe they were on the walkway to the Martin house. My recollection is that the walkway to the Martin house was further down the top of the T away from Z's truck.

 

[Rayderr]

After like 2000 posts in here you finally bring up a valid point.

Not sure if this was meant as a joke or not, but the guy actually has 1928 posts in this thread so far. That's amazing.

Carolina Hustler - 2188 - 8.82%

Tim - 1928 - 7.78%

Christo - 1807 - 7.29%

JonMX - 1455 - 5.87%

Busted Knuckles - 1425 - 5.75%

Those 5 make up 35.5% of the 24000+ posts in this thread.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think its important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that that doesnt go away.I dont want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And its inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Where is the prejudice here?

Seriously?

Edit: Sorry, I jumped back into the thread at the point of my last post. I see now that a bunch of people have already tried in vain to explain this to tim. It's highly unlikely that I'll succeed where so many others have failed, so I'll just let it go.

Could you explain it to me then?

I suppose that you could call it prejudice in a strict sense of the term, but "prejudice" typically involves some negative intent. I don't see a good reason to use a pejorative for something that applies to everyone. It loses it's meaning. Everyone appraises events based on their own experiences and cultural history. We're all prejudice in that sense. The best that we can do is try to get a handle on our how our experiences, culture, and upbringing shape our understanding of the world. And, if we're not ###### people, try to understand other folks through their experiences and their point of view. I think that is exactly what O was doing in his speech. Trying to highlight how the AA community's reaction to the issue was reasonable when considering their historical context and personal experiences. None of us know what happened that night. We're all bringing our own baggage to the table in trying to make sense of it.

This is basically right. When somebody brings a particular set of experiences to the table and interprets this particular case in a way that shoe-horns it into their own preconceived narrative, that's prejudice by definition.

In other words, all the stuff that tim quoted about how African Americans have this particular history and so that colors how they view stuff like this is best interpreted as a statement that those folks are prejudiced in this case and not looking at it objectively.

So how was Obama "pandering to prejudice" then? It appeared like he was using this as a teaching moment.....helping different groups of people understand how others' experiences influence their perceptions. I didn't see this as Obama justifying the mindset.....but rather explaining context. Evidently others saw it differently.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

So all these points are correct?

1) The fight was on the very walkway to the Martin house.

2) Zimm "said" he hadnt gone onto that walkway until after the fight started.

3) Its about 70 yards to the door. About 15 yards from the walkway Zimm "said" he was on when talking to police.

4) His brother is in the house.

I don't believe they were on the walkway to the Martin house. My recollection is that the walkway to the Martin house was further down the top of the T away from Z's truck.

Not sure how his dads girlfriends son became his "brother". Not even step-brother yet.

 

[timschochet]

After like 2000 posts in here you finally bring up a valid point.

Not sure if this was meant as a joke or not, but the guy actually has 1928 posts in this thread so far. That's amazing.

Carolina Hustler - 2188 - 8.82%

Tim - 1928 - 7.78%

Christo - 1807 - 7.29%

JonMX - 1455 - 5.87%

Busted Knuckles - 1425 - 5.75%

Those 5 make up 35.5% of the 24000+ posts in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

Did you hear/read Obama's speech? I thought he laid out pretty clearly how this incident and its aftermath triggered a reaction from so many.

It seems that some want to argue that because GZ is not overtly racist (and we have good reasons to think that he isn't), then that means that race isn't a part of this whole saga. I just think that's really short sighted.

I saw how he pandered to prejudice.

What specific prejudice are you referring to and in what manner did Obama pander to it?

I think its important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that that doesnt go away.I dont want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And its inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Where is the prejudice here?

Seriously?

Edit: Sorry, I jumped back into the thread at the point of my last post. I see now that a bunch of people have already tried in vain to explain this to tim. It's highly unlikely that I'll succeed where so many others have failed, so I'll just let it go.

Could you explain it to me then?

I suppose that you could call it prejudice in a strict sense of the term, but "prejudice" typically involves some negative intent. I don't see a good reason to use a pejorative for something that applies to everyone. It loses it's meaning. Everyone appraises events based on their own experiences and cultural history. We're all prejudice in that sense. The best that we can do is try to get a handle on our how our experiences, culture, and upbringing shape our understanding of the world. And, if we're not ###### people, try to understand other folks through their experiences and their point of view. I think that is exactly what O was doing in his speech. Trying to highlight how the AA community's reaction to the issue was reasonable when considering their historical context and personal experiences. None of us know what happened that night. We're all bringing our own baggage to the table in trying to make sense of it.

This is basically right. When somebody brings a particular set of experiences to the table and interprets this particular case in a way that shoe-horns it into their own preconceived narrative, that's prejudice by definition.

In other words, all the stuff that tim quoted about how African Americans have this particular history and so that colors how they view stuff like this is best interpreted as a statement that those folks are prejudiced in this case and not looking at it objectively.

So how was Obama "pandering to prejudice" then? It appeared like he was using this as a teaching moment.....helping different groups of people understand how others' experiences influence their perceptions. I didn't see this as Obama justifying the mindset.....but rather explaining context. Evidently others saw it differently.

They saw it wrong. Starting with Christo, but Ivan as well, IMO.

I referenced the novel A Passage to India earlier, which I can't recommend highly enough. Obama was channeling E.M. Forster from the grave. He certainly wasn't endorsing anything (other than peaceful protest.)

 

[avoiding injuries]

I wish there were quote limits.

 

[Bonzai]

Bonzai,

Do you happen to be an inner city counselor by any chance or at the very least work in those types of neighborhoods?

Something like that, yes.

 

[Politician Spock]

Obama thinks Earl is black.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

The answer is in between IMO the two extremes of jon and tim. It's naive to think that his race wasn't part of the profile. It's clear it wasn't the initiating factor, but I believe it helped it was part of the "they" Zimmerman made reference to. Is that racial profiling in it's strictest sense? No. With that said, what evidence do you think we have? That Zimmerman dated a black girl? That he did work with minority charities? I'm certainly not poo pooing efforts like that, but I really don't see it as definitive evidence one way or the other as to what he was thinking that night. It's quite possible the recent events in his neighborhood had him thinking very differently in that moment, but that's anyone's guess. The last thing we are left with is the jury, but forgive me if I put little credence into what an all white jury believes with regards to racism.

Again, I don't think it was the driving factor in his decisions, but I think it was an element.

I want to challenge you here. You state that my argument is extreme. Yet when I read the whole of your paragraph, I find very little distinction between your argument and mine. I may differ with your statement "it's clear that it wasn't the initiating factor" because I don't think any aspect of Zimmerman's thinking that night was clear. But that's hardly an extreme position. I have stated earlier that while I believe that Zimmerman was racial profiling that night, this in itself does not make him guilty of any crime- I regard racial profiling as something almost all of us are guilty of from time to time- not a good thing by any means, but also not something that I make a habit out of condemning others for when I have done it myself. It is something that as a society we should work to resolve IMO- you can disagree with me on that, but again I don't think it's an extreme position.

So how am I extreme?

 

[Statorama]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

 

[renesauz]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

I'm not pushing the racism issue any longer. I am still pushing that GZ committed racial profiling, and that race is a central issue regarding this case. I continue to believe these are very reasonable assumptions, and despite your assertion I haven't seen any compelling evidence that argues against racial profiling.Even if GZ was not racial profiling, the perception that he was, especially among most African-Americans, is central to the national importance of this case, which is why no matter what it is STILL all about race. Furthermore, contrary to the arguments of several people here, that perception is based largely not on false reporting by the media nor on inflammatory statements by black leadership, but on a very real history of ibstitutionalized racism which all blacks are aware of and which, in terms of law enforcement and the judicial system continued into present day.

When people's assumptions are wrong, they need to be told that they are wrong. Not that they are valid.

Link to when a politician or public speaker has EVER told the public they are wrong?

The COURT told them their assumptions were wrong. Obama came out and told them that despite what the court said, their assumptions were still valid.

Link to where he said this?

"And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away."

He's not telling the AA community their view produced a false assumption. His telling non-AA that the AA view is valid.

Actually...he's just explaining why they have it...there is no value judgment in those words.

 

[Politician Spock]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[renesauz]

if racism wasn't something that black males go through every day of their lives,

It is not every black male, and perhaps not every day, but you are living in a cave if you think that it isn't still a common occurence

If you've read his posts, he's genuine though. He really doesn't believe it exists. Neither, apparently do several other posters here.

It is not that racism doesn't exist, it is that the perception of racism is blown extremely out of proportion. Instead of seeing the great opportunities which do exist, black youth are held back by this incredible feeling of victimhood which is out of sync with the reality of today. Until this culture of victimhood is changed, which even Obama helps promote, black youth are destined to repeat this cycle of poverty and crime.

This. There is a middle ground where one can acknowledge that remnants of racism exist while acknowledging that we have come to a point where those remnants are no longer a valid excuse for poor behavior, that it is no longer "institutionalized".

 

[Politician Spock]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

I'm not pushing the racism issue any longer. I am still pushing that GZ committed racial profiling, and that race is a central issue regarding this case. I continue to believe these are very reasonable assumptions, and despite your assertion I haven't seen any compelling evidence that argues against racial profiling.Even if GZ was not racial profiling, the perception that he was, especially among most African-Americans, is central to the national importance of this case, which is why no matter what it is STILL all about race. Furthermore, contrary to the arguments of several people here, that perception is based largely not on false reporting by the media nor on inflammatory statements by black leadership, but on a very real history of ibstitutionalized racism which all blacks are aware of and which, in terms of law enforcement and the judicial system continued into present day.

When people's assumptions are wrong, they need to be told that they are wrong. Not that they are valid.

Link to when a politician or public speaker has EVER told the public they are wrong?

The COURT told them their assumptions were wrong. Obama came out and told them that despite what the court said, their assumptions were still valid.

Link to where he said this?

"And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away."

He's not telling the AA community their view produced a false assumption. His telling non-AA that the AA view is valid.

Actually...he's just explaining why they have it...there is no value judgment in those words.

He is validating why they judge a man to be guilty before he is proven guilty.

 

[Statorama]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

Instead of using Treyvon Martins corpse as a prop to give me some kind of street cred in the black community, I would have had my speech writers craft something that would unite us all. I don't have the hundreds of paid speech writers that Obama has at his disposal.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

I'm not pushing the racism issue any longer. I am still pushing that GZ committed racial profiling, and that race is a central issue regarding this case. I continue to believe these are very reasonable assumptions, and despite your assertion I haven't seen any compelling evidence that argues against racial profiling.Even if GZ was not racial profiling, the perception that he was, especially among most African-Americans, is central to the national importance of this case, which is why no matter what it is STILL all about race. Furthermore, contrary to the arguments of several people here, that perception is based largely not on false reporting by the media nor on inflammatory statements by black leadership, but on a very real history of ibstitutionalized racism which all blacks are aware of and which, in terms of law enforcement and the judicial system continued into present day.

When people's assumptions are wrong, they need to be told that they are wrong. Not that they are valid.

Link to when a politician or public speaker has EVER told the public they are wrong?

The COURT told them their assumptions were wrong. Obama came out and told them that despite what the court said, their assumptions were still valid.

Link to where he said this?

"And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away."

He's not telling the AA community their view produced a false assumption. His telling non-AA that the AA view is valid.

Actually...he's just explaining why they have it...there is no value judgment in those words.

He is validating why they judge a man to be guilty before he is proven guilty.

No he isn't. You continue to get this wrong. If he were validating them, he would have said something along the lines of "you guys are right; George Zimmerman really is guilty". He did no such thing, or even come close to it.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

Instead of using Treyvon Martins corpse as a prop to give me some kind of street cred in the black community, I would have had my speech writers craft something that would unite us all. I don't have the hundreds of paid speech writers that Obama has at his disposal.

Based on the bolded part of your response to my question, I don't think you read any of the speech. And if you did read it, then I question your ability to comprehend it.

 

[Politician Spock]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

There are those who don't like the verdict. And then there are those who have assumed he was guilty all along and still do despite the verdict. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman is free, because the law did not find him guily. But now he lives in a society where a great amount of people still assume he is guilty, despite the verdict. He will not "live free". To say we must "respect and understand" the assumptions made by those who will keep him from living free validates the lack of freedom his life will have from now on. There is no reason to justify the societal prison Zimmerman will live in for the rest of his life. Yet you and Obama seem to have reason to continue justifying it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

 

[timschochet]

if racism wasn't something that black males go through every day of their lives,

It is not every black male, and perhaps not every day, but you are living in a cave if you think that it isn't still a common occurence

If you've read his posts, he's genuine though. He really doesn't believe it exists. Neither, apparently do several other posters here.

It is not that racism doesn't exist, it is that the perception of racism is blown extremely out of proportion. Instead of seeing the great opportunities which do exist, black youth are held back by this incredible feeling of victimhood which is out of sync with the reality of today. Until this culture of victimhood is changed, which even Obama helps promote, black youth are destined to repeat this cycle of poverty and crime.

This. There is a middle ground where one can acknowledge that remnants of racism exist while acknowledging that we have come to a point where those remnants are no longer a valid excuse for poor behavior, that it is no longer "institutionalized".

First off, to be clear: racism has NEVER been a valid excuse for poor behavior. We can make connections without making excuses. For example, it's important to note that most men who are wife abusers were themselves abused as children, and they learned to accept this behavior as "normal". That doesn't excuse their abuse, but it helps us to understand it. The history of racism in this country has played a huge role as to why many blacks continue to struggle with crime, but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Second, there is no question in my mind that racism remains institutionalized in terms of the justice system in this country. Statistic after statistic demonstrates that blacks receive more suspicion by police, more arrests, more convictions, greater punishments (including the death penalty) at skewed numbers compared to their percentage of the overall population. The numbers don't lie.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

There are those who don't like the verdict. And then there are those who have assumed he was guilty all along and still do despite the verdict. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman is free, because the law did not find him guily. But now he lives in a society where a great amount of people still assume he is guilty, despite the verdict. He will not "live free". To say we must "respect and understand" the assumptions made by those who will keep him from living free validates the lack of freedom his life will have from now on. There is no reason to justify the societal prison Zimmerman will live in for the rest of his life. Yet you and Obama seem to have reason to continue justifying it.

Sure there is. Zimmerman isn't guilty of what he was charged with. He also isn't completely innocent, in that he was a major player in a situation that resulted in someone dying. Does that mean he should be banned from society? No. Does that mean his life should go on unchanged, and he should be back in exactly the same situation he was before this? Not necessarily.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

Did you read or watch the whole speech? Just curious.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

 

[spreagle]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

There are those who don't like the verdict. And then there are those who have assumed he was guilty all along and still do despite the verdict. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman is free, because the law did not find him guily. But now he lives in a society where a great amount of people still assume he is guilty, despite the verdict. He will not "live free". To say we must "respect and understand" the assumptions made by those who will keep him from living free validates the lack of freedom his life will have from now on. There is no reason to justify the societal prison Zimmerman will live in for the rest of his life. Yet you and Obama seem to have reason to continue justifying it.

Sure there is. Zimmerman isn't guilty of what he was charged with. He also isn't completely innocent, in that he was a major player in a situation that resulted in someone dying. Does that mean he should be banned from society? No. Does that mean his life should go on unchanged, and he should be back in exactly the same situation he was before this? Not necessarily.

The great hypocrisy here is that the same people who complain that felons have "done their time" and should therefore be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to job opportunities, voting, etc. are the same ones who are putting bounties on Zimmermans head, and the guy wasn't convicted of anything.

 

[Bonzai]

I think part of the confusion is thinking about this whole deal simply as a "case" in the legal sense. I know this place is infested with lawyers (some of them very cool), but not every issue can or should be boiled down to only a legal case. This was also an incident between two people, a media circus, a cultural phenomenon, a tragedy, etc. Obama was very clear that he was not commenting on the issue in a legal sense, but people can't help themselves to steer it back in that direction and I'm not sure why. There are countless ways in which one can comment on this event and its aftermath, the legal being only one of them.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

Instead of using Treyvon Martins corpse as a prop to give me some kind of street cred in the black community, I would have had my speech writers craft something that would unite us all. I don't have the hundreds of paid speech writers that Obama has at his disposal.

Based on the bolded part of your response to my question, I don't think you read any of the speech. And if you did read it, then I question your ability to comprehend it.

He shouldnt have even mentioned the Martin case. Ever. Period. If he wants to start a dialogue on race relations I have zero issues with that. He should not tie that into this case though.

He would be better off finding other examples. If you want to speak of the unfair effects of racism in this country you need to focus on the people that are just trying to make it in this world and are getting dealt an unfair hand. You need to focus on the woman I work with that works two jobs and is a single mother of two children. What situations does racism cause her problems on a weekly basis? How can those be fixed? Instead we talk about racism when crime is involved.

Like it or not, but the common population doesnt really care to talk about how racism affects troubled black males when they are in trouble. Those discussions will be viewed as excuses. Even though sometimes there may be incredibly valid points. People are not going to care that the best buy employee followed you around last week and all you were doing there was buying a DVD when it is being brought up because you got caught stealing something at Target.

 

[Politician Spock]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

There are those who don't like the verdict. And then there are those who have assumed he was guilty all along and still do despite the verdict. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman is free, because the law did not find him guily. But now he lives in a society where a great amount of people still assume he is guilty, despite the verdict. He will not "live free". To say we must "respect and understand" the assumptions made by those who will keep him from living free validates the lack of freedom his life will have from now on. There is no reason to justify the societal prison Zimmerman will live in for the rest of his life. Yet you and Obama seem to have reason to continue justifying it.

Sure there is. Zimmerman isn't guilty of what he was charged with. He also isn't completely innocent, in that he was a major player in a situation that resulted in someone dying. Does that mean he should be banned from society? No. Does that mean his life should go on unchanged, and he should be back in exactly the same situation he was before this? Not necessarily.

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

 

[Leonidas]

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Those who don't like the verdict almost universally don't even know the facts of the case, thus their 'opinion' is irrelevant.

 

[timschochet]

I think part of the confusion is thinking about this whole deal simply as a "case" in the legal sense. I know this place is infested with lawyers (some of them very cool), but not every issue can or should be boiled down to only a legal case. This was also an incident between two people, a media circus, a cultural phenomenon, a tragedy, etc. Obama was very clear that he was not commenting on the issue in a legal sense, but people can't help themselves to steer it back in that direction and I'm not sure why. There are countless ways in which one can comment on this event and its aftermath, the legal being only one of them.

As I commented last night, conservatives in general have an aversion to dealing with racial issues.