Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Synobun]

Nobility baby, nobility. It comes with privilege. Kinda like the omniscience to know that the creeper following you is a neighborhood watch creeper, not just a creeper. That too comes with privilege.

I simply do not understand the mindset that if someone is following you it must be due to a virtuous responsibility and not something nefarious or otherwise questionable. It reads eerily like someone who's never left a gated community and would recognize the person from a mile away because everyone is a big pal with each other on the HOA.

Someone you respect or otherwise trust is ideally not an individual that sees it fit to follow people while armed. It is strange to suggest cordial acceptance of an inherently threatening act.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't tell me man...I'm one of the people on record advocating for not only taking down the creeper, but for taking him down without giving him the benefit of a confrontation.

 

[KmDubya]

Don't tell me man...I'm one of the people on record advocating for not only taking down the creeper, but for taking him down without giving him the benefit of a confrontation.

Do you run into a lot of situations where you pre-emptively attack people who happen to be going in the same direction as you?

You should avoid escalators and moving walkways as all those creepers might set you off. Good thing that you're an ex-con and can't carry a firearm or else there'd be a rash of mass shootings wherever you are.

 

[Synobun]

Do you run into a lot of situations where you pre-emptively attack people who happen to be going in the same direction as you?

You should avoid escalators and moving walkways as all those creepers might set you off. Good thing that you're an ex-con and can't carry a firearm or else there'd be a rash of mass shootings wherever you are.

Most functional human beings are capable of telling the difference of "heading in the same direction" and "this individual is following me", especially if you deviate from your path to hide and see them looking to figure out where you went.

 

[Berzerker]

Zimmerman wasn't "watching"

when I said that you accused me of flip flopping

 

[Berzerker]

Well! Doesn't being the privileged class make one a noble soul! Man, would I love to shake your hand and clap you on the back!

Oh, you're not in the privileged class? "Clap"?

Nobility baby, nobility. It comes with privilege. Kinda like the omniscience to know that the creeper following you is a neighborhood watch creeper, not just a creeper. That too comes with privilege.

Martin didn't need omniscience, he talked with Zimmerman before attacking him. Martin was asked why he was in the neighborhood and he didn't like it, so he got mad and attacked him.

You would feel relief that someone was following you and targeted you as a danger to the community?

I'd feel relief upon learning the guy was neighborhood watch and not a 'creeper'.

 

[Sommerswerd]

when I said that you accused me of flip flopping

So you again confim that you did say this. And yes that's exactly right... I did say that as well. And you are also exactly right that when you said exactly the same thing that I did, I accused you of flip flopping.

Let me give you a simple analogy to explain why this makes sense. I say the San Francisco 49ers are my favorite NFL team. If you say the Cowboys are your favorite team, we have a disagreement, fine ... but then if you later say that the 49ers are your favorite... well then you have flip flopped. I will still say the 49ers are my favorite, so even though you have now said the same thing as me, you have still flip flopped, while I have not. Do you understand that conceptually?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you run into a lot of situations where you pre-emptively attack people who happen to be going in the same direction as you?

Nope. Because I'm not so stupid as to think that Zimmerman's behavior can be successfully compared to "just happening to be going the same direction." Are you that stupid, or were you just hypothesizing here?

 

[Berzerker]

So you again confim that you did say this.

This is what I said:

Zimmerman wasn't watching or 'stalking' anything, he didn't know where Martin was and thought he ran off in the direction of a rear entrance and even told the cops that before Martin attacked him. So he headed back to his truck and was intercepted by Martin. He got attacked, knocked to the ground, and Martin was on top beating him before the gun entered the picture. All facts matter...

You took the first 3 words and edited out the rest. Then you took a quote from another post where I said Zimmerman was watching Martin to call it a contradiction/flip flop. Thats a straw man... I saw what you did, that wasn't nice. Yeah, Zimmerman was watching Martin until losing him in the complex. Thats what I said and thats what the evidence shows. It does not show Zimmerman stalking him. Well, the neighborhood watch title should have made that obvious but if you'd like a definition of the word, here ya go:

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person

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

And yes that's exactly right... I did say that as well. And you are also exactly right that when you said exactly the same thing that I did, I accused you of flip flopping.

A hypocritical straw man... That takes talent.

Let me give you a simple analogy to explain why this makes sense. I say the San Francisco 49ers are my favorite NFL team. If you say the Cowboys are your favorite team, we have a disagreement, fine ... but then if you later say that the 49ers are your favorite... well then you have flip flopped. I will still say the 49ers are my favorite, so even though you have now said the same thing as me, you have still flip flopped, while I have not. Do you understand that conceptually?

I've been a 49er fan most of my life, America's Team sucks and your analogy does too (okay, Dallas was good last year). I said Zimmerman wasn't watching Martin after losing him in the complex. You said Zimmerman wasn't watching Martin, he was stalking him. How does one stalk without watching? So obviously Zimmerman was watching but you said he wasn't. I didn't use that for a straw man nor did I make a fuss about it, but you did. Now, are you suggesting with your analogy that Zimmerman never watched Martin? That does appear to be your logic.

 

[Agent327]

You said Zimmerman wasn't watching Martin, he was stalking him. How does one stalk without watching? So obviously Zimmerman was watching but you said he wasn't.

It seems to me stalking is a hyperbolic form of watching. Look at it this way: Zimmerman says he was 'watching'. But it's clear from both accounts he was doing a bit more than that. He was actively following. Such conduct can easily be perceived as being stalked by the person who is being 'watched', especially considering what made Zimmerman 'watch' and what happened after. It's not that hard to imagine that if you notice being followed (watched, in Zimmerman's words), you may perceive that as at least harassing, possibly even threatening. What puzzles me in this whole narrative: what possessed Zimmerman with his 'watching' in the first place? Was he expecting a crime to take place? (And, if so, wouldn't he need back up - especially considering what followed next?)

 

[KmDubya]

It seems to me stalking is a hyperbolic form of watching. Look at it this way: Zimmerman says he was 'watching'. But it's clear from both accounts he was doing a bit more than that. He was actively following. Such conduct can easily be perceived as being stalked by the person who is being 'watched', especially considering what made Zimmerman 'watch' and what happened after. It's not that hard to imagine that if you notice being followed (watched, in Zimmerman's words), you may perceive that as at least harassing, possibly even threatening. What puzzles me in this whole narrative: what possessed Zimmerman with his 'watching' in the first place? Was he expecting a crime to take place? (And, if so, wouldn't he need back up - especially considering what followed next?)

Zimmerman lived in that neighborhood which had experienced several robberies so he volunteered to join the neighborhood watch, which is a group of people who 'watch' the neighborhood looking out for suspicious activity and reporting such to the police. He saw someone suspicious, followed them to see what they were doing while calling the police. He lost sight of the suspicious person and was heading back towards his car when Trayvon attacked him. In the ensuing struggle Zimmerman got his ass beat and when Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun he was able to shoot and kill Trayvon and thus saved his own life.

In the ensuing media firestorm, the media used pictures of Trayvon as a young child rather than the near full grown man that he was and invented the term 'white hispanic' to somehow make this a black and white issue rather than a case of self defense.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is what I said:

TL;DR- I should have said, "Zimmerman wasn't only watching, he was stalking as well", and I'm pretty sure that you understood that to be what I was saying. But that's irrelevant, really. The bottom line is Zimmerman started it. Zimmerman unilaterally initiated this confrontation by acting in a threatening manner towards Trayvon, put Trayvon in fear for his safety, when Trayvon had done nothing to warrant Zimmerman's threatening actions. Trayvon was literally and proverbially, "Walking down the street, minding his own business." If Zimmerman had not acted in a threatening manner towards Trayvon, then there would have been no confrontation and no homicide. Finally, one of the reasons that Zimmerman acted in this threatening manner towards Trayvon is because Trayvon was black, and Zimmerman clearly harbours the racist belief that black people are inherently suspicious, because of their race. That is the real point of this discussion, and arguments about your flip flops and the definition of stalking are distractions from the real issue.

if you'd like a definition of the word, here ya go: Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

So onto the tangential stuff. This is a pointless red herring because what your're trying to do is limit the concept to the definition of the crime of "stalking", which isn't relevant, because I was using "stalking" in the ordinary sense. It's like I say "he was "holding" a gun" and you say "Nuh uh! The definition of "holding" is "the illegal restraining of a player not in possession of the ball". You're off base. In common usage, to stalk is:
stalk - stôk/ -verb - gerund or present participle: stalking

1. pursue or approach stealthily.
   "a cat stalking a bird"
   synonyms: creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt; More
   • harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention.
     "for five years she was stalked by a man who would taunt and threaten her"
   • literary
     move silently or threateningly through (a place).
     "the tiger stalks the jungle"

As Agent327 says, this isn't the real point... and where your going with this is typical of a person who is wrong and has lost the argument, you're trying to derail us into tangential discussions, splitting hairs over definitions of words and other such nonsense. Another thing I've observed over the years to be a popular derail tactic is to accuse the person debunking you of "being mean" or "not being nice"... please... all these bush league derailing tactics are so tired and so transparent.

Now I will admit that I said "he wasn't watching he was stalking", when what I should have said was "He was watching AND stalking" so that was my bad. But as you correctly pointed out stalking requires watching. So stalking necessarily includes watching... but you knew that, so TBH I didn't need to say he was watching because by your own words, saying he was stalking, implies watching. So obviously when I said "stalking not watching", it was to draw the distinction between only watching and stalking, which by necessity, includes watching AND stalking.

So again, to be completely clear I guess I could have said, "Zimmerman wasn't only watching, he was stalking as well." So do you acknowledge and agree with this, or do you have some new red herring/tangent that you want to derail into?

I've been a 49er fan most of my life

Since we at least agree on this, I'm tempted to just shake hands on this common ground and leave it at that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Zimmerman lived in that neighborhood which had experienced several robberies so he volunteered to join the neighborhood watch, which is a group of people who 'watch' the neighborhood looking out for suspicious activity and reporting such to the police. He saw someone suspicious, followed them to see what they were doing while calling the police. He lost sight of the suspicious person and was heading back towards his car when Trayvon attacked him. In the ensuing struggle Zimmerman got his ass beat and when Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun he was able to shoot and kill Trayvon and thus saved his own life.

In the ensuing media firestorm, the media used pictures of Trayvon as a young child rather than the near full grown man that he was and invented the term 'white hispanic' to somehow make this a black and white issue rather than a case of self defense.

Yeah, if someone is following me around such that I feel a need to get off the street and hide I'm not going to ask them their life story before I defend myself. Fortunately since I'm not black you'd be far more sympathetic towards me when I did.

 

[Berzerker]

TL;DR

A paragraph was too long to read? A sentence was too long? You can only read 3 words before typing out a response?

I should have said, "Zimmerman wasn't only watching, he was stalking as well", and I'm pretty sure that you understood that to be what I was saying.

I knew what you meant because I read your post, I didn't stop after 3 words because it was TL;DR. And then you took those 3 words and posted them with a different quote about neighbors (like Zimmerman) watching out for each other to accuse me of a flip flop. I know what you did, and you're still doing it because its TL;DR. After seeing you in action you lost credibility with me. Zimmerman was watching Martin from his vehicle, Martin ran off and hid and Zimmerman lost sight of him and you think thats a flip flop.

But that's irrelevant, really. The bottom line is Zimmerman started it. Zimmerman unilaterally initiated this confrontation by acting in a threatening manner towards Trayvon, put Trayvon in fear for his safety, when Trayvon had done nothing to warrant Zimmerman's threatening actions. Trayvon was literally and proverbially, "Walking down the street, minding his own business." If Zimmerman had not acted in a threatening manner towards Trayvon, then there would have been no confrontation and no homicide.

Martin ran and hid and then he watched Zimmerman 'run' by. Martin talked with a friend on the phone and saw Zimmerman coming back a couple minutes later. Martin confronted Zimmerman. We know that because Martin's friend was still on the phone with him and she heard Martin asking Zimmerman to justify his presence. There is no evidence Zimmerman was 'stalking' Martin, he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who followed a suspicious person a very short distance to see if they took a turn down a path or street heading for an entrance.

If your argument is based on what Martin felt, then by your own logic Zimmerman was not only justified in following him, he would have been justified in pulling his gun and making a citizen's arrest if he felt Martin was a burglar. Now here's the problem with your argument, Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him and Zimmerman responded by asking what Martin was doing in the neighborhood. That is not a question a stalker would ask.

If Martin thought he was a stalker intent on violence he wouldn't have come out of hiding much less gotten in the 'stalker's' face to confront him. If you were in somebody else's neighborhood and you were asked what you were doing there, wouldn't you rationally think they were concerned by your presence? Whomever threw the first punch is responsible. That is the bottom line.

Finally, one of the reasons that Zimmerman acted in this threatening manner towards Trayvon is because Trayvon was black, and Zimmerman clearly harbours the racist belief that black people are inherently suspicious, because of their race.

Did Zimmerman follow other black people around? Of course not, some of the residents who knew him were black. The people suspected of burglarizing the neighborhood were young black males, Martin was a young black male loitering at the community mailboxes, thats why he drew Zimmerman's attention.

This is a pointless red herring because what your're trying to do is limit the concept to the definition of the crime of "stalking", which isn't relevant, because I was using "stalking" in the ordinary sense.

Zimmerman stood trial for murder and legal definitions dont matter?

In common usage, to stalk is:
stalk - stôk/ -verb - gerund or present participle: stalking

1. pursue or approach stealthily.
   "a cat stalking a bird"
   synonyms: creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt; More
   • harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention.
     "for five years she was stalked by a man who would taunt and threaten her"
   • literary
     move silently or threateningly through (a place).
     "the tiger stalks the jungle"

As Agent327 says, this isn't the real point... and where your going with this is typical of a person who is wrong and has lost the argument, you're trying to derail us into tangential discussions, splitting hairs over definitions of words and other such nonsense. Another thing I've observed over the years to be a popular derail tactic is to accuse the person debunking you of "being mean" or "not being nice"... please... all these bush league derailing tactics are so tired and so transparent.

You didn't tell the truth about what I said. You edited different quotes to accuse me of flip flopping and you committed hypocrisy in the process. That isn't nice and I called you on it... How in the hell did we get into a 'debate' about flip flops and 'stalking'? You took us down those roads and now you're accusing me of derailing tactics. The hypocrisy is just pouring from your posts.

Now, what exactly was stealthy or silent about Zimmerman? It was Martin who was hiding and it was Martin who came out of hiding to surprise Zimmerman. If you're gonna call someone a stalker, identify the person who hid before attacking someone else.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How in the hell did we get into a 'debate' about flip flops and 'stalking'?

Well, you got into it by repeatedly flip flopping...the rest of us got into it by having the misfortune of you posting in the thread.

 

[Agent327]

Zimmerman lived in that neighborhood which had experienced several robberies so he volunteered to join the neighborhood watch, which is a group of people who 'watch' the neighborhood looking out for suspicious activity and reporting such to the police. He saw someone suspicious, followed them to see what they were doing while calling the police. He lost sight of the suspicious person and was heading back towards his car when Trayvon attacked him. In the ensuing struggle Zimmerman got his ass beat and when Trayvon went for Zimmerman's gun he was able to shoot and kill Trayvon and thus saved his own life.

In the ensuing media firestorm, the media used pictures of Trayvon as a young child rather than the near full grown man that he was and invented the term 'white hispanic' to somehow make this a black and white issue rather than a case of self defense.

I'm not sure what a 'media firestorm' (?) has to do with my comment. Let's be clear about one thing: if you join a 'neighbourhood watch' and go following people 'because they might be up to something' you're looking for trouble. In this case, trouble was found and one man ended up end up dead. I made no comment on whether anything was justified, only on what took place. The fact that Zimmerman 'lost' his suspect suggests that the 'suspect' was well aware of being followed (and interpreted this as being stalked) and decided to do something about it. Two bad decisions resulting in one dead man. Of course, the second bad decision would have been impossible without the first.

 

[Ryika]

Two bad decisions resulting in one dead man. Of course, the second bad decision would have been impossible without the first.

A black person decides to take a shortcut and walks over the lawn of a house in a rich white neighborhood.
The house owner sees him as a threat and decides to put 83 bullets into him to make sure he dies.

Two bad decisions resulting in one dead man. Of course, the second bad decision would have been impossible without the first.


A woman decides to walk home alone, although it's already dark and the way home leads to a really dangerous neighborhood.
Half way home, a man sees her and decides to rape her.
While the man rapes her, another man sees what's happening and decides to shoot the guy in the head. He misses and kills the woman instead.

Three bad decisions resulting in one dead woman. Of course, the second and third bad decision would have been impossible without the first.


A Hispanic person decides to walk into a police station while openly wearing his gun to prove a point.
A police officer decides that that person's life is not worth the potential danger he put himself in if he tries to get him to drop the weapon, instead draws his gun and blasts him in the face.

Two bad decisions resulting in one dead man. Of course, the second decision would have been impossible without the first.


A black kid decides to play around with a realistic looking gun in a park.
The police officers that are called to investigate rush in and shoot him dead instead of approaching carefully and asking him to drop the weapon.

Two bad decisions resulting in one dead kid. Of course, the second decision would have been impossible without the first.


I mean, those are true, but also rather meaningless if you ignore the severity of the actions involved.

 

[KmDubya]

I'm not sure what a 'media firestorm' (?) has to do with my comment. Let's be clear about one thing: if you join a 'neighbourhood watch' and go following people 'because they might be up to something' you're looking for trouble. In this case, trouble was found and one man ended up end up dead. I made no comment on whether anything was justified, only on what took place. The fact that Zimmerman 'lost' his suspect suggests that the 'suspect' was well aware of being followed (and interpreted this as being stalked) and decided to do something about it. Two bad decisions resulting in one dead man. Of course, the second bad decision would have been impossible without the first.

People join a neighborhood watch because they care about the welfare of their neighbors and their community. It uses up valuable free time in an effort to help others. The police are not there to stop crimes but a vigilant neighborhood watch can deter them. criminals will notice a community that watches out for each other and go rob someone else, some place full of apathetic people who don't care about anyone else.

You are equating 'volunteering to help your neighbors' with 'looking for trouble and wanting to kill someone'. Looking for people who don't belong in the neighborhood and reporting their presence to the police are what a neighborhood watch does. Trayvon did not live in that neighborhood (he was visiting his father) and looked suspicious in that he was a young black man wearing a hoodie when all the other robberies in the neighborhood were caused by young black men in hoodies.

The crime was committed when Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Trayvon made that decision and paid for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are equating 'volunteering to help your neighbors' with 'looking for trouble and wanting to kill someone'.

No, you are assuming that Zimmerman did the former not the latter. That assumption appears to have little support based on the outcome.

 

[KmDubya]

No, you are assuming that Zimmerman did the former not the latter. That assumption appears to have little support based on the outcome.

If Zimmerman wanted to kill people he'd have joined the police


Bottom line who cares what his motivations were? If I lived in Zimmerman's neighborhood and he wanted to form a neighbor hood watch and be a junior G-man, I'd say go have at it. It'd probably deter some crime and he'd be busy 'fighting the good fight'.

Even if he spent his evening dressed up in Batman underroos it still doesn't change the fact that Trayvon chose to start a fight that led to his own death. Actions have consequences.