Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Agent327]

So, idiots get people killed.

I'm just going to leave this here:

You see this thing?

That’s one of the early iPhones. Before the iPhone came out, there were phones with cameras, but they were crappy cameras with very low resolution and almost no storage on the phone. So, before the iPhone came, triggering the “smartphone” revolution, most people didn’t have cameras on them 24/7.

The first iPhone was released in 2007.

Since that day, smartphone popularity has risen to the point that my daughter recently saw my mom’s old-fashioned flip phone and asked, “Is that a phone?”

Why am I talking about cell phone evolution here? It’s because the rise of smartphone popularity, for some odd reason, coincides with the amount of videos that have been taken of police brutality of blacks, something that’s had a LARGE role to play in the growing racial tension in this country.

Now, we can reach one of three conclusions based on this information:

1. The rise of smartphones and the rise in police brutality videos are completely 100% independent of each other.
2. African-Americans have ALWAYS been abused by police, but now it’s far easier to capture the incidents due to the availability of cameras.
3. Police didn’t abuse blacks before 2007, but they’re so upset about the rise in smartphone use that they’re now beating blacks.

(there may be other conclusions that can be reached, but…let’s just be honest with ourselves)

In my entire lifetime, I’ve been in jail once (long story); I was put into the drunk tank with all the other drunks and, as more and more people were added as the night progressed, more and more rowdy folks were added to the cells. This, being Phoenix in the 80s, meant that the folks in the cells were entirely white or Latino, except for one black guy with jeri curls and earrings. Now, there were some loud idiots in there, shouting things like, “I want my lawyer!” and “I didn’t do nothing, let me out!”, while the black guy just sat in the corner. Twice, an officer came to the cells and shouted for us to pipe down, and a few minutes later, people would be obnoxious again. The third time he came down, there were three cops; they opened the cell door and led the black guy out. I assumed he was being set free, but about 10 minutes later, he was led back into the cells and put back in; his face was badly bruised and bloodied, and his earring had been ripped out, leaving his earlobe a bloody mess.

I have a hard, HARD time believing that my experience was a rarity. Testimonials from places like Ferguson, Philadelphia, New York, and Montgomery speak volumes about the treatment that blacks have suffered for decades at the hands of racist cops and the “blue shield” protecting them and they tell me that blacks have always been treated this way.

We just now have video proof of it. A lot of it.

I’ve talked to people about this. Many African-Americans I know have told me that they were taught, repeatedly through their youth, how to react around police. You keep your head down, you follow orders, you do exactly as you’re told or you get hurt. And you know what I’ve seen in many of these videos? People doing exactly that.

And dying.

These people are dying for no reason. A man on a BART train in Oakland was lying on the ground while an officer cuffed him; the officer stood up, calmly pulled his gun, and shot him in the back.

Would we even know about this incident in 2000? Making it worse, the officer was practically exonerated (he was charged with murder but only convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which means he killed somebody through “carelessness”), serving 8 months in a private cell, guarded by friends. How? Because he said he thought he drew his Taser. Watch the video again: why would he be drawing his Taser?

They are dying.

And sadistic idiots definitely get people killed, though not indiscriminately.

 

[Lexicus]

I never said Zimmerman losing Martin was proof he was trying to avoid a confrontation, I said it was proof Zimmerman didn't disobey the dispatcher's instructions.

It is, of course, proof of the opposite, but sure!

 

[Sommerswerd]

He wasn't following black people, he followed a young black male who was acting suspiciously because the neighborhood had recently seen burglaries by young black males. Martin doesn't represent black people, making him serve in that role doesn't do black people any favors.

When you say "he" you're talking about Zimmerman, right? Note that in my comment (that you are responding to) I did not mention Zimmerman. I think you are right to think that the Zimmerman killing is related, but trying to limit your response to Zimmerman is ignoring the real point. My point again, is that in general, the actions of individual black people is seen by folks (apparently including you personally) as adequate justification for being suspicious of black people in general. But the same folks who typically assert this (Republicans, for example) will simultaneously assert that the actions of individual cops can't be used as a justification for condemning/criticizing cops in general.

So again, the point of my post was to point out the irony that in general, blacks as a whole are viewed with suspicion, and this is routinely justified by pointing to the actions that an individual black person did, by the same people who would adamantly refuse to apply this same line of reasoning to police. The Zimmerman case is just one example of this. So your argument in defense of Zimmerman is not really responsive to my point.

Now, turning my attention to Zimmerman specifically, because I know that's what you really want to talk about... I already addressed this point with you in agonizing detail. You said:

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.

and I responded that

which is your stone cold admission that Zimmerman's motive for threatening Trayvon was based on his race.

Again, you embrace the idea that if there were crimes committed in the area which people believed were committed by blacks, that this is a justification for them being suspicious of blacks they see who they don't personally know. In the Zimmerman case you took the position that a black kid hanging out in your neighborhood whom you don't know, is a prima facie "suspicious" person, because they share the race of some other alleged perpetrators. In other words, Trayvon's race coupled with the fact that Zimmerman didn't know him, justified Zimmerman considering him suspicious enough to follow him with a gun. This viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, but unfortunately very common when it comes to blacks.. and this is underscored so clearly when placed in contrast to the fact that folks routinely resist applying this same logic to the police. In any case, I already did a lengthy analysis of all the flaws in the "Trayvon was suspicious" argument I don't think you read any of it:

Spoiler :

You have defined Trayvon as "a suspicious person". I reject that premise outright. Trayvon was not "a suspicious person" he was a completely innocent teenager, who was walking down the street minding his own business. What is your basis for calling him "a suspicious person"? And by suspicious... I am not looking for another derailment into definitions of words. Obviously suspicious is a sliding scale. What I want to know is what made him suspicious enough to warrant getting out of your car with a gun, prepared to use deadly force?

Zimmerman was acting in an objectively and subjectively threatening way. Objectively, because an unknown person following you is threatening behavior. Subjectively, because Zimmerman was armed, which means he was anticipating and preparing to use deadly force. So even from Zimmerman's subjective position he intended to pose a threat to Trayvon. Now Trayvon didn't know for sure whether Zimmerman was carrying a gun, but he did detect that Zimmerman was following him, which was enough objective evidence of Zimmerman's subjective intent to pose a threat to him, so Trayvon tried to evade Zimmerman. However, Zimmerman started looking for Trayvon, and Trayvon decided to change his response to the persistent objective threat that Zimmerman posed from running and hiding from the threat into confronting the threat. Essentially, he went from "flight" into "fight", either of which is a normal response to being threatened.

The position you seem to be taking is that the blame is on Trayvon because he was wrong to switch his response from 'run" into "confront", but that ignores that Zimmerman was the one who engaged in the initial threatening behavior that placed Trayvon in the position of having to make a "fight or flight" call in the first place. And it seems like your claimed justification for excusing Zimmerman is that he is a neighborhood watch volunteer. But that isn't logical is it? Because Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was a volunteer for the neighborhood watch. All he knew was that Zimmerman was a person acting in a threatening manner towards him. Zimmerman on the other hand, knew that Trayvon was a guy walking down the street minding his own business. He knew that Trayvon was not committing any crimes as he was watching him.

Now if Zimmerman believes that any person being in his neighborhood that he himself doesn't know is automatically suspicious, to the level that he needs to follow them with a gun to see what they're up to, just because he himself subjectively doesn't know them... that's a completely unreasonable, indefensible attitude. So there has to be more than "Trayvon was a stranger" to explain his suspicion. "There were burglaries" is not remotely a justification for suspicion, because Trayvon wasn't committing any burglaries, nor was he doing anything that was indicative of being a burglar, he wasn't peeking in peoples windows or carrying burglar's tools, or fiddling with people's doors. Now if the justification is "he's a big black guy in my neighborhood", that makes perfect sense. I am well aware that many people consider black strangers, particularly large, young, black male strangers as positively terrifying, and suspicious by default. But now we are admitting that Zimmerman's justification was a racist justification, which I suspect you aren't willing to do (as you are aware that a racist justification isn't really a justification at all but more like an explanation).

 

[plarq]

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

Quote of the day. But to clarify, in my opinion, "he'd" is “he should”, not "he would" or "he could".

 

[Gori the Grey]

And should be "young black men" instead of "people," imho. Makes the jab more pointed.

 

[Berzerker]

It is, of course, proof of the opposite, but sure!

Why do you accuse Zimmerman of following Martin in defiance of the dispatcher's instructions when he lost Martin before the dispatcher's instruction not to follow?

When you say "he" you're talking about Zimmerman, right? Note that in my comment (that you are responding to) I did not mention Zimmerman.

You 'quoted' people talking about Zimmerman

The sentiment that folks were arguing as being understandable/justified was "Of course its understandable that he would be following blacks he sees in the neighborhood, there was a burglary reported with a black suspect."

I think you are right to think that the Zimmerman killing is related, but trying to limit your response to Zimmerman is ignoring the real point. My point again, is that in general, the actions of individual black people is seen by folks (apparently including you personally) as adequate justification for being suspicious of black people in general.

You're accusing Zimmerman of something for which you dont have evidence to make a 'real point' about others (and me). Isn't that the guilt by association you condemn when applied to blacks? Did Zimmerman follow other blacks around? Little children, women, old timers? Or did he just follow one young black male who was acting suspiciously?

So again, the point of my post was to point out the irony that in general, blacks as a whole are viewed with suspicion, and this is routinely justified by pointing to the actions that an individual black person did, by the same people who would adamantly refuse to apply this same line of reasoning to police. The Zimmerman case is just one example of this. So your argument in defense of Zimmerman is not really responsive to my point.

Where is your evidence Zimmerman followed black people around? The guy not only is part black, he has family who are black and he started a business with a black partner. If you're gonna make him out to be a racist, good luck with your efforts to lessen racial divisions.

Now, turning my attention to Zimmerman specifically, because I know that's what you really want to talk about... I already addressed this point with you in agonizing detail. You said:
and I responded that

Again, you embrace the idea that if there were crimes committed in the area which people believed were committed by blacks, that this is a justification for them being suspicious of blacks they see who they don't personally know. In the Zimmerman case you took the position that a black kid hanging out in your neighborhood whom you don't know, is a prima facie "suspicious" person, because they share the race of some other alleged perpetrators. In other words, Trayvon's race coupled with the fact that Zimmerman didn't know him, justified Zimmerman considering him suspicious enough to follow him with a gun. This viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, but unfortunately very common when it comes to blacks.. and this is underscored so clearly when placed in contrast to the fact that folks routinely resist applying this same logic to the police. In any case, I already did a lengthy analysis of all the flaws in the "Trayvon was suspicious" argument I don't think you read any of it:

Martin fit the profile of people burglarizing the neighborhood. He was a young black male who was behaving suspiciously. He was loitering by the mailboxes and then he stared Zimmerman down while circling his vehicle and then he ran off into the complex. But nah, that aint suspicious. Zimmerman just liked following black people around. I imagine a cop or security guard would have found his conduct suspicious, including black cops and black security guards (and black neighborhood watch volunteers).

If your neighborhood suffered a rash of burglaries and the suspects were young black males, how would you react to an unfamiliar young black male behaving suspiciously? Where will I find your lengthy analysis? A page or post number will do. So far you've argued there is no distinction between Martin and all blacks, if I was black I wouldn't appreciate being lumped in with a violent criminal.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"If Since Zimmerman wanted to kill black people he'd tried to joined the police, but he failed, so he settled for "neighborhood watch" instead"

fixed that for you.

 

[Hygro]

You're accusing Zimmerman of something for which you dont have evidence to make a 'real point' about others (and me). Isn't that the guilt by association you condemn when applied to blacks? Did Zimmerman follow other blacks around? Little children, women, old timers? Or did he just follow one young black male who was acting suspiciously?

Which turned out to be a terrible choice because operating on demographics caused him to kill someone not doing what Zimmerman was suspicious of so why are you defending him?

I'm going to say dude, because you're stuck on it.

Your defense of Zimmerman over the years reads like "I could have been Zimmerman, and since I'm not a bad dude, I can't let you guys consider this guy a bad dude."

That's a bad place, bro.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If your neighborhood suffered a rash of burglaries and the suspects were young black males, how would you react to an unfamiliar young black male behaving suspiciously?

First, define "rash" of burglaries... specifically how many were there? And how many of these were solved with arrests of black males? I smell goalpoast moving here.

Second, as I've explained in great detail already "the suspects were young black males" is a red-herring. The former "young black male" inside me just sighs and SMFHs at this. The suspects are always young black males because that's how American culture works and has always worked. Saying that "the suspects were young black males" is like saying the grass is green. I can certainly appreciate that its impossibly hard for you to get how irrelevant it is to me that "the suspects were young black males"... but it is nevertheless, irrelevant.

Third, I only heard about one burglary that was positively connected to a black male. This comment is a perfect example of the disconnect in perspective between the two of us. I have lived and had family members living in neghborhoods that regularly have burglaries. We do not react with suspicion to any stranger who happens to be a young black male. How would I respond? Not like Zimmerman. No way no how. I know his reaction seems justified to you, but that is because you share his perspective... ie young black males who I don't know are inherently suspicious/scary/dangerous/criminals.

Fourth, Your premise is faulty as you haven't remotely established that Martin was "acting suspiciously". The problem here is that "young black males I don't know that are standing around" is automatically suspicious to you and anyone who has an inherent, learned bias against black people whom you don't know. But your suspicion isn't remotely justified, its just racially-motivated animosity, based on racial stereotypes. It feels natural to people, because they've been learning it their whole life and have had it reinforced by media and pop-culture, but that doesn't change the fact that its unfair and unjustified... understandable, sure, which is why black parents teach their kids to be especially cautious around the police and whites in general... but NOT justified.

if I was black I wouldn't appreciate being lumped in with a violent criminal.

Well you're not and I am, so... I can't even.. To illustrate, did you not see all the outpouring of support and people wearing hoodies in solidarity with Trayvon? You seemed to miss the fact that people were perfectly happy to be lumped in with him. You.Just.Don't.Get.It.

Your comment... which is you, a non-black person, effectively presuming to tell me how I should feel as a an actual black person reminds me of an image Lexicus posted a while back:

 

[Sommerswerd]

Martin fit the profile of people burglarizing the neighborhood. He was a young black male who was behaving suspiciously. He was loitering by the mailboxes and then he stared Zimmerman down while circling his vehicle and then he ran off into the complex. But nah, that aint suspicious.

This is the impossible catch-22 that a young black male finds himself in. If you see someone scoping you out, circling the block watching you, and you hunch your shoulders, try to seem small and non-threatening, divert your eyes from them and look uncomfortable... they will say that you were "acting suspicious"... If you stand tall, puff your chest out like a proud, confident fearless man and stare them down... they will say you were "acting suspicious". If you run away and hide from them they will say you were "acting suspicious"... but if you stand tall, and confront them they will say "I was in fear for my life" and shoot you.

It's freaking impossible, and this is the needle I have to teach my sons to thread for their whole lives so I don't end up attending their funeral... almost makes me want to cry. Seriously. You are suspicious of us no matter what we do. The issue isn't our behavior. Its your prejudice. Period.

As for the "fit the profile" excuse... It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced this... what its like to get pulled over once a month (minimum) by the cops as a teenager and told exactly this... that you "fit the profile" , or "your taillight was out" or "you didn't signal far enough from the intersection" or "you were driving kind of slow"... It starts sounding like a lot of BS pretty quick after like the third or fourth time you hear it.

Your defense of Zimmerman over the years reads like "I could have been Zimmerman, and since I'm not a bad dude, I can't let you guys consider this guy a bad dude."

Bingo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is the impossible catch-22 that a young black male finds himself in. If you see someone scoping you out, circling the block watching you, and you hunch your shoulders, try to seem small and non-threatening, divert your eyes from them and look uncomfortable... they will say that you were "acting suspicious"... If you stand tall, puff your chest out like a proud, confident fearless man and stare them down... they will say you were "acting suspicious". If you run away and hide from them they will say you were "acting suspicious"... but if you stand tall, and confront them they will say "I was in fear for my life" and shoot you.

It's freaking impossible, and this is the needle I have to teach my sons to thread for their whole lives so I don't end up attending their funeral... almost makes me want to cry. Seriously. You are suspicious of us no matter what we do. The issue isn't our behavior. Its your prejudice. Period.

As for the "fit the profile" excuse... It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced this... what its like to get pulled over once a month (minimum) by the cops as a teenager and told exactly this... that you "fit the profile" , or "your taillight was out" or "you didn't signal far enough from the intersection" or "you were driving kind of slow"... It starts sounding like a lot of BS pretty quick after like the third or fourth time you hear it.
Bingo.

I regret that I have not yet accomplished unmaking this world, and apologize to you and your family.

 

[Hygro]

One time I was wearing a hoodie at night carrying a pine cone because I was stoned and thought it was cool. Cop car rolls up to me, asks me what I'm doing and where I live. Had dropped the pinecone when I saw the squad car slow down near me. I tell him I'm walking home from my friend's house, act casual. He then says "ok. we have a report of a young black male running through this neighborhood. Have you seen anything?" Of course not. I walk through that neighborhood all the time and almost never see anyone.

The kicker? Same friend I was walking home from was already joking the month before about how the cops always ask that question after they roll on you. About a young black guy running. Hint, there's no report of a black guy running.

 

[Berzerker]

Which turned out to be a terrible choice because operating on demographics caused him to kill someone not doing what Zimmerman was suspicious of so why are you defending him?

I'm going to say dude, because you're stuck on it.

Your defense of Zimmerman over the years reads like "I could have been Zimmerman, and since I'm not a bad dude, I can't let you guys consider this guy a bad dude."

That's a bad place, bro.

I'm just here responding to others, if I'm stuck the flypaper caught them too... I didn't create or bump the thread or start this up again, but you saved that comment for me. Funny how that works. Violent criminal attacks neighborhood watch volunteer and I'm supposed to applaud the violent criminal? Great message for the children. Martin got killed because he attacked someone with a gun instead of talking to them, or just ignoring them...

First, define "rash" of burglaries... specifically how many were there? And how many of these were solved with arrests of black males? I smell goalpoast moving here.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting-burglaries/

Second, as I've explained in great detail already "the suspects were young black males" is a red-herring. The former "young black male" inside me just sighs and SMFHs at this. The suspects are always young black males because that's how American culture works and has always worked. Saying that "the suspects were young black males" is like saying the grass is green. I can certainly appreciate that its impossibly hard for you to get how irrelevant it is to me that "the suspects were young black males"... but it is nevertheless, irrelevant.

So young black males didn't burgle homes because you were a young black male once and American culture just works that way? If young white males (or fill in the blank) were suspected of robbing homes, strange young white males behaving suspiciously would draw attention from the neighbors and authorities.

How would I respond? Not like Zimmerman. No way no how. I know his reaction seems justified to you, but that is because you share his perspective... ie young black males who I don't know are inherently suspicious/scary/dangerous/criminals.

You're not neighborhood watch, he was... So what would you do? Ignore the suspicious stranger? Would it matter what color he was? Well, it would if the suspects were the same color. We're right back to the profile. Did Zimmerman follow black people? No, he followed 1 young black male who was acting suspiciously a very short distance before losing him.

Fourth, Your premise is faulty as you haven't remotely established that Martin was "acting suspiciously".

Zimmerman gave the police dispatcher a 'live' play-by-play of his behavior. Here's the disconnect between us, I'm looking at facts and you're reliving your youth and making Zimmerman pay for someone else's sins.

The problem here is that "young black males I don't know that are standing around" is automatically suspicious to you and anyone who has an inherent, learned bias against black people whom you don't know. But your suspicion isn't remotely justified, its just racially-motivated animosity, based on racial stereotypes.

An inherent, learned bias? Evolution has designed me to be wary of strange things that might harm me and that means an inherent bias against young men of any color. My bias is further strengthened by learning that young men are responsible for more violent crimes than other people. But its not animosity, just common sense. I dont despise or hate young men just because I'm aware of the potential danger they pose.

To illustrate, did you not see all the outpouring of support and people wearing hoodies in solidarity with Trayvon? You seemed to miss the fact that people were perfectly happy to be lumped in with him. You.Just.Don't.Get.It.

Those people were told Zimmerman murdered Martin. Were his black neighbors wearing hoodies too? And I was a young white male, who do you think the cops profile when a young white man commits a crime? I've had my share of encounters with police, I've had them point guns at me so a lying sack of sargeant could train his foot soldiers and then lie to my face about why they pulled us over. And yeah, my car matched one used in a robbery blah blah blah. And that aint the worst I've suffered because of cops employed by politicians I didn't vote for. You.Don't.Know.Me.

Your comment... which is you, a non-black person, effectively presuming to tell me how I should feel as a an actual black person reminds me of an image Lexicus posted a while back:

I was telling you how I'd feel about being lumped in with a violent criminal, if Martin was white I wouldn't appreciate being lumped in with him either. I was trying to show race doesn't matter by explaining how my position wouldn't change if I shared the race of the violent criminal. So, if I was black I'd still think it was unjustified for Martin to attack Zimmerman.

This is the impossible catch-22 that a young black male finds himself in. If you see someone scoping you out, circling the block watching you, and you hunch your shoulders, try to seem small and non-threatening, divert your eyes from them and look uncomfortable... they will say that you were "acting suspicious"... If you stand tall, puff your chest out like a proud, confident fearless man and stare them down... they will say you were "acting suspicious". If you run away and hide from them they will say you were "acting suspicious"... but if you stand tall, and confront them they will say "I was in fear for my life" and shoot you.

I'd either stand there or walk home... I wouldn't "confront" the person concerned by my presence. I wouldn't walk up to their vehicle staring at them and circle around and run. And most of all, I wouldn't hide and ambush them. Your argument is so detached from reality, assault becomes a noble confrontation and the victim didn't fear for his life when his head was being bashed into a sidewalk.

It's freaking impossible, and this is the needle I have to teach my sons to thread for their whole lives so I don't end up attending their funeral... almost makes me want to cry. Seriously. You are suspicious of us no matter what we do. The issue isn't our behavior. Its your prejudice. Period.

Every parent teaches their kid to avoid trouble, especially with cops. Here's the painful truth, the drug war has created a war zone largely in black neighborhoods and the resulting violence creates the stereotype of violent, drug-involved black men. God forbid you lose a son to that violence, but odds are his killer would be a young black man. So, have you been voting for the people waging that drug war? I haven't... Maybe the issue is your behavior.

 

[Berzerker]

I regret that I have not yet accomplished unmaking this world, and apologize to you and your family.

Voting for Democrats made this world

 

[EgonSpengler]

Voting for Democrats made this world

I'd be curious to hear more about this, if you have the inclination.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Voting for Democrats made this world

Bull. The current socio-economic landscape of America was established by Reagan. No Democrat since has been able to overcome the holding actions of Reagan acolytes. Any slight inroads they have made have been subsequently undone by more Reagan acolytes.

Reagan's line of promises sounded great, at the time, and I bought it. But how anyone can look at the fact that we've been following it for almost forty years and it hasn't worked at all like he said that it would and not figure out that he lied is totally beyond me.

 

[Sommerswerd]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting-burglaries/

Thanks for the link. However, the article you linked squarely contradicts your position and neatly illustrates mine.

A neighbor and friend of George Zimmerman's said Tuesday on CNN that their neighborhood had suffered eight burglaries, all committed by young black men, in the 15 months prior to Trayvon Martin's shooting. Frank Taaffe's account paints a picture of a neighborhood watch volunteer making rounds in a community suffering a spate of burglaries when he ran across what he thought was a suspicious figure walking the streets. Police records appear to only partially substantiate Taaffe's claims about the burglaries, citing three of eight cases in which suspects were identified as black males.

1. Eight burglaries in 15 months? You consider that "a rash of burglaries"? That's not even 1 burglary a month. That's barely one burglary every 2 months. In what world can you describe that as "a rash of burglaries"? By way of contrast, I just looked up the neighborhood I grew up in, where my brother lives now (suburban) and there were 2 burglaries, 3 robberies and 5 thefts from property reported in the last month alone. I looked up the neighborhood where my brother lived last year before he moved back home (urban) and I stopped counting when I got to 9 burglaries/thefts in a week. I looked at my baby sister's neighborhood (urban) and stopped after seeing 4 shootings, 3 burglaries and 3 thefts from property for one day. So to the extent that you were regarding 8 burglaries in 15 months to be some significant amount that justifies armed neighborhood watch roaming around patrolling for blacks... your perceptions are unreasonable and unjustified... and little more than a flimsy excuse to obscure your prejudices. You want to claim there is some kind of crime "crisis" ie "rash of burglaries" when in fact, there is nothing of the sort... and the reason you want to claim that there is a crisis situation is to justify the prejudice/suspicion of blacks that you already feel.

2. Plus only 3 of the 8 (extremely rare, as already explained above) burglaries actually had black suspects. However, notice that Zimmerman's friend claims that all the suspects are black, when the article clearly states that only 3 out of the 8 suspects were actually black. And Zimmerman's friend (and you) claim that not only were they black but black males and not just black males but young black males, when the facts are that most of the burglaries actually had no suspects. How does "no suspect" become "young black male"? Racial prejudice, that's how. The idea that the remaining majority of unidentified suspects are black is spun completely from whole cloth... well, actually spun from racial prejudice. "Young black males" is the default scapegoat for all crime and it seems perfectly normal to people to think that if a black guy commits a crime, then we can conclude that all the crime is being committed by blacks. This perfectly illustrates what I was talking about. Because of racial prejudice folks like you blame young black males for things even when there is no evidence. Its your default position, and it feels completely normal and justified to you. But its not.

So in summation. You are wrong that there were many burglaries going on. There weren't. So there was no justification whatsoever for the heightened sense of alarm. You are also wrong that all the burglaries had black male suspects. In fact most of the burglaries did not have black suspects. So you are wrong on both counts and your house of cards for justifying Zimmerman has been blown away by the first paragraph of the article you cited to support your position.

 

[metalhead]

Every parent teaches their kid to avoid trouble, especially with cops. Here's the painful truth, the drug war has created a war zone largely in black neighborhoods and the resulting violence creates the stereotype of violent, drug-involved black men. God forbid you lose a son to that violence, but odds are his killer would be a young black man. So, have you been voting for the people waging that drug war? I haven't... Maybe the issue is your behavior.

Have you been to a black neighborhood? I admit I haven't been to every black neighborhood in the country, but the ones I have been to, even the ones where people sell drugs openly, are not war zones at all. I would venture to say that the stereotype you speak of comes mainly from people perpetuating it who for the most part have never set foot in a place where black people actually live but feel comfortable judging what goes on there.

I was telling you how I'd feel about being lumped in with a violent criminal, if Martin was white I wouldn't appreciate being lumped in with him either. I was trying to show race doesn't matter by explaining how my position wouldn't change if I shared the race of the violent criminal. So, if I was black I'd still think it was unjustified for Martin to attack Zimmerman.

Surely you must realize how ridiculous this sounds. How could you possibly know how you'd feel if you were black and therefore had a totally different life experience? President Obama felt compelled to place a hypothetical son of his in Trayvon Martin's shoes, so I don't think anyone can say, "If I was black I'd think Trayvon got what he deserved!" You might feel that way, it's not like one's race dictates their opinion on this case. But you might also feel quite differently if you didn't have the life experience of a white person.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Have you been to a black neighborhood? I admit I haven't been to every black neighborhood in the country, but the ones I have been to, even the ones where people sell drugs openly, are not war zones at all. I would venture to say that the stereotype you speak of comes mainly from people perpetuating it who for the most part have never set foot in a place where black people actually live but feel comfortable judging what goes on there.

I grew up in a black neighborhood. It wasn't a "war zone". I have also attended school located in black neighborhoods that looked like warzones, because of the neglected, economically depressed condition of the buildings, but they were not remotely like actual warzones or at least, not like I'd imagine a war zone to be like if I had ever served in an actual war zone. That whole "warzone" mythology is part-and parcel of the "black people are violent criminals" stereotype. It makes perfect sense to people who harbor prejudice against black people and think of black people as "scary" and "dangerous" that black neighborhoods would be scary and dangerous as well. It's an easy mental leap from "black people are violent criminals" to "black neighborhoods are overrun with violent crime"... and that's all that is going on here, just standard racial prejudice.

 

[Lexicus]

I grew up in a black neighborhood. It wasn't a "war zone". I have also attended school located in black neighborhoods that looked like warzones, because of the neglected, economically depressed condition of the buildings, but they were not remotely like actual warzones or at least, not like I'd imagine a war zone to be like if I had ever served in an actual war zone. That whole "warzone" mythology is part-and parcel of the "black people are violent criminals" stereotype. It makes perfect sense to people who harbor prejudice against black people and think of black people as "scary" and "dangerous" that black neighborhoods would be scary and dangerous as well. It's an easy mental leap from "black people are violent criminals" to "black neighborhoods are overrun with violent crime"... and that's all that is going on here, just standard racial prejudice.

I have lived in a couple of "black" neighborhoods...and neither was particularly warzone-like. The most degenerate people I have ever lived among were definitely predominantly white college students

When in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Saying "well if I was black I would X" is similar in many ways to saying "if I was a doctor I would prescribe this" or "if I was an engineer I would build the building this way"... no you wouldn't necessarily... because if you were that, you would have some actual experience and knowledge commensurate with that identity and you would be making an informed, rather than uninformed decision.

It's quite clearly self-serving...it's a way of saying "hey this totally isn't racist, if I were black I'd be saying the same thing!"