Obama is "Grown-Up Trayvon"?

[JollyRoger]

It's been a few years since I took any criminal Justice classes, but I am a 100% sure white on black crime is pretty much a non factor.

Did they exclude white collar crime?

 

[Antilogic]

Did they exclude white collar crime?

Beautiful.

 

[Borachio]

It is.

But, just the same, I think the answer to the serious question is yes.

 

[woody60707]

Is that what they taught you in your criminal justice classes? To think in terms of "white on black crime"?

It isn't a crime because it is quite acceptable in some of the more backward states to execute anybody whom you perceive might be a possible threat. That is unless you are a black man who kills a white man in supposed self defense. Then the odds of it being considered acceptable are vastly less. Then it is a "black on white crime".

So you agree with what I said??? I only ask because your tone says you don't,...but your (incomplete) data say you do. That state prosecutor and the justice system is harder on people when the victim white. You did read what I posted, right? Also "stand your ground" was not used in this case. Why do you keep bring it up? And you also forgot to included white on white. can you please update your graph to correct that please.

About the only thing racist you can take away from the number are when the victim is white, the defendant is more likely to be found guilty and receive a greater sentence than if the victim was black.

So it seems very convenient that only people in the criminal justice system that continue the racial injustice are the same people in the system who were trying to slam Zimmerman (state prosecutor, Governors office, ect). That's just great leadership.

EDIT: And what I took away from my classes were crime is opportunity based. And the whole black on black, black on white, ect ect is no more then a myth use by people now of days for the sole reason to score political points in some way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you agree with what I said???

What you "said" was perpetuating the absurd myths of "black on white crime" which are used by far-right authoritarians to try to rationalize the profiling of innocent blacks, just as George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin.

And I asked you if that was what you learned in your criminal justice classes. So is it? Or is it something you picked up on your own?

 

[woody60707]

Did they exclude white collar crime?

Doesn't everyone. God forbid rich white males where ever hold accountable for there actions?

 

[woody60707]

What you "said" was perpetuating the absurd myths of "black on white crime" which are used by far-right authoritarians to try to rationalize the profiling of innocent blacks, just as George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin.

And I asked you if that was what you learned in your criminal justice classes. So is it? Or is it something you picked up on your own?

Not sure if you saw the edit in time.

EDIT: And what I took away from my classes were crime is opportunity based. And the whole black on black, black on white, ect ect is no more then a myth use by people now of days for the sole reason to score political points in some way.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't know if I'm just being dense, or missing a joke of Forma's based on woody's "100%," but I can't figure out how to read the proffered chart. What does it mean for there to be a 300% likelyhood of someone being "found justified . . ." A 3x greater likelyhood? But then you wouldn't put black-on-white and white-on-black in the chart separately.

Something's off here. It could well be my ability to read charts or understand likelyhood. What is the source of the chart?

Oh, it doesn't include the ones that never go to trial? But still uses that as its 100% marker? I'm confused.

What I'm saying is shouldn't the highest "percentage likeyhood of a killing being found justified" be 100% If it's relative percentage, shouldn't the title say that, and the bars map up better, and black-against-white not be on separately from white-against-black?

Does anyone see the trouble I'm having with the chart and can walk me through it?

Or, again, is it a made-up chart for humorous effect (with likelyhood being the tipoff) and I'm just missing the joke?

 

[JollyRoger]

Doesn't everyone. God forbid rich white males where ever hold accountable for there actions?

We do target certain rich white men:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=304305

Post 43 is one of the favorite (non-infracted) posts I made here.

 

[Berzerker]

Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that? Did I say that?

Yes, you did. The least you could do is grow some balls and admit it.

I assumed nothing.

You're assuming people are racists for defending Zimmerman because he's "white". Y'all brought race into this, not me. And you didn't answer my questions again.

As I said, it is not place my speculate on Berzerker's motivations. Did I say it was? No, I said it was not, and while it may be possible to read that statement ironically, it is in fact the case that everything should be taken literally all the time always, as Berzerker has so tenaciously insisted. An who I am to dissent?

Where'd I say everything must be taken literally? It may be "possible"

You've gotta be joking. Who's life, liberty, property was at such an immediate risk that it prompted Zimmerman's life-risking actions? The only thing at risk was Zimmerman's ego.

They had burglaries in the neighborhood and he got attacked because he was out there trying to deter more. Thats risking his life for his neighbors. Cops are out there risking their necks too and it dont matter if they're fighting for their lives after being attacked or writing a ticket.

They both profiled each other does not really point to any motive on each others part to start a confrontation. How can you say it all points to Martin?

None of it points to Zimmerman

What about Mr. Z who did not go back to his vehicle and wait for the police

He tried to, Martin didn't let him.

The only thing I see is Martin showed some concern about his safety.

He came out of hiding to confront Zimmerman.

If one listens to the call to dispatch, we "see" that Zimmerman substantiated that both parties seemed to be "checking each other out". As Martin was walking away, Mr. Z got out of his vehicle, and Martin started to run away.

Martin approached Zimmerman while he sat in his truck and then ran off and the dispatcher asked where, Zimmerman started following on foot.

Mr Z did pursue Martin so he would not loose sight of him. When the dispatch recognized that Mr. Z was running, he told him that was not necessary.

After the dispatcher asked him where Martin was running

Are we assuming that Martin ran away to lure Mr. Z into a trap?

No, the decision to attack Zimmerman was made after Martin saw him a 2nd time as he was walking back thru the T to his truck

The only fact, I see is Mr. Z not wanting to loose sight of Martin. That they did end up approaching each other, and Martin asked, "why are you following me?", still does not give Martin a reason to start a fight.

They didn't approach each other, Martin was hiding

Martin told his GF that Mr. Z was back in sight, and that he was going to go ask him why he was being followed and his GF told him to run to his apartment.

So you agree it was Martin who started the confrontation?

I have asked, because I do not have access to the GF's testimony, what was in the conversation that pointed out that Martin was gunning for a fight?

He came out of hiding and started asking the cracka questions

Mr. Z was the only one with a gun, and a reason to detain another person.

He didn't pull the gun until he was on the ground getting his head bashed in

 

[timtofly]

I cannot argue against the logic that states:

There was a surprise attack that occurred between two people walking around. One looking for trouble and the other one talking on the phone.

It is physically impossible.

 

[JollyRoger]

He had freedom enough to draw his gun, but not freedom enough to escape?

 

[Antilogic]

TL/DR: he said, she said results in one dead person and the story is conveniently exculpatory for the survivor.

 

[Berzerker]

I cannot argue against the logic that states:

There was a surprise attack that occurred between two people walking around. One looking for trouble and the other one talking on the phone.

It is physically impossible.

One was walking around, the other was hiding. I may be wrong but I dont think she said Martin told her he was going to approach Zimmerman.

I have to thank Forma for helping me understand what happened, he kept focusing on the T. But Forma said Martin wasn't hiding, he was - he just ran away from Zimmerman, whats he gonna do, stand on the sidewalk at the T in plain sight? Course not, he made the turn and ducked out of sight while Zimmerman walked by...twice.

Thats why there's missing time between the dispatcher's request not to follow and the actual exchange of words and fight. Forma got me focused on that missing time too, most of the research I've done was to confirm what the "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd was saying. And most of it was wrong and completely backwards. The fact this anger and ignorance was induced by the media without help from Fox "News" doesn't bode well for us...

He had freedom enough to draw his gun, but not freedom enough to escape?

The 1st freedom requires getting an arm loose while being attacked, the 2nd requires the ability to run faster than the person ambushing you. That leaves Zimmerman with the 1st freedom.

 

[JollyRoger]

Or you could use that free arm to throw a punch.

 

[Berzerker]

not if you need it to get the gun before your attacker grabs it

 

[JollyRoger]

Grab your gun, toss it away from the scene, when the attacker takes the bait, run the other way.

 

[Berzerker]

and out run a bullet?

 

[JollyRoger]

Shouldn't have brought a gun and bullets to a footrace.

 

[Berzerker]

Cops do it all the time, the gun was faster than the feet