Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Timsup2nothin]

My sense of justice is...

apparently disconnected from reality.

FTFY

 

[Berzerker]

you're the one who advocated murdering neighborhood watch people if they get too close to you

 

[metalhead]

The Democrats created those war zones with their drug war, but I'm not sure why domestic violence is racial prejudice. Martin is a violent criminal because he attacked a neighborhood volunteer. Zimmerman's past aint relevant any more than Martin's, not to me anyway.

The point is that George Zimmerman has been a violent criminal his whole life, but you don't characterize him as such. Trayvon Martin defended himself against someone who rolled up on him in a car and then got out of the car to come after him. And that somehow warrants the label "violent criminal." It's not like Zimmerman was wearing an orange vest labeled "Neighborhood Watch." He's just a random dude that rolled up on Trayvon in his car.

In other words, facts don't appear to be the reason you're using the label you're using. I'm also not clear on why you insist that black people live in war zones, but I think that might be the same reason you call Trayvon Martin a violent criminal.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My sense of justice is color blind

Yes, I realize that your sense of justice is "colorblind." This is exactly the problem, beautifully illustrated... and the fact that you're oblivious to why this statement from you proves my argument goes back to that well known term that captures the tendency for you to be oblivious.

if yours is not, that aint my problem.

Yes! Exactly! Again, you make my point concisely. It is my problem, not yours. Its my problem, not your problem... because I am black, not you.

To recap... Justice is "colorblind" to you and for you... and the fact that its not for me is my problem not yours because you don't even perceive it. That is your privilege, beautifully illustrated.

It is my problem, it is my sons' problem, it is my family's problem and it was Trayvon's problem. A problem that you are oblivious to, because your justice is "colorblind"... because you are not black. In other words, this is black peoples' problem, because it affects and harms black people, while other people are/ have been oblivious to it.

And THAT is why we say "Black Lives Matter", not "All Lives Matter"

 

[Broken_Erika]

So "All Lives Matter" is basically "Status Quo Matters"

 

[Berzerker]

The point is that George Zimmerman has been a violent criminal his whole life, but you don't characterize him as such. Trayvon Martin defended himself against someone who rolled up on him in a car and then got out of the car to come after him. And that somehow warrants the label "violent criminal." It's not like Zimmerman was wearing an orange vest labeled "Neighborhood Watch." He's just a random dude that rolled up on Trayvon in his car.

In other words, facts don't appear to be the reason you're using the label you're using. I'm also not clear on why you insist that black people live in war zones, but I think that might be the same reason you call Trayvon Martin a violent criminal.

I didn't insist black people live in war zones. Here's what I said:

"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."

The focus of the drug war was (and still is) black urban populations, not middle or upper class white neighborhoods. I said the Democrats replaced Jim Crow with a drug war and the war zone was largely located in black neighborhoods, but as drugs spread so does the war. If a black neighborhood wasn't targeted in the drug war, then they weren't living in a war zone created by the drug war. And by "war zone", I dont mean it literally as if this was Syria, just that a metaphorical drug war creates metaphorical war zones. I already explained this... Take a look at all the black men in coffins and prison cells the next time you dont think they were targets of a war (no, its a war on drugs, really )

As for Martin being a violent criminal, he attacked somebody for being concerned by his presence in the neighborhood. I dont know what Zimmerman or Martin did in their lives and I dont care, all I care about is who attacked whom. In these debates Martin's supporters said his past wasn't relevant, I agree... Thats true for Zimmerman too. From what little I read neither was a saint, but one attacked and one got attacked and thats what matters.

Yes, I realize that your sense of justice is "colorblind." This is exactly the problem, beautifully illustrated... and the fact that you're oblivious to why this statement from you proves my argument goes back to that well known term that captures the tendency for you to be oblivious.

Yes! Exactly! Again, you make my point concisely. It is my problem, not yours. Its my problem, not your problem... because I am black, not you.

To recap... Justice is "colorblind" to you and for you... and the fact that its not for me is my problem not yours because you don't even perceive it. That is your privilege, beautifully illustrated.

It is my problem, it is my sons' problem, it is my family's problem and it was Trayvon's problem. A problem that you are oblivious to, because your justice is "colorblind"... because you are not black. In other words, this is black peoples' problem, because it affects and harms black people, while other people are/ have been oblivious to it.

Where do I start? This problem is not limited to blacks, I've been the victim of the drug war. I know other victims of the drug war, both family and friends. There are millions of victims who aren't black... For all your complaining about prejudice your arguments are loaded with it. And now you're trying to justify it because blacks have been the victims of a drug war waged by Democrats who enjoy their overwhelming support. Blacks have been inflicting the war on drugs on themselves and other people for decades. Thank you so very much for that. The irony is if I employed your logic I'd reject color blind justice in favor of persecuting blacks as pay back. Chew on that...

So lets talk about prejudice... I didn't know this until recently, but Martin's friend testified he called Zimmerman an 'ass-cracka' and apparently thats slang for gays or gay rapists. I wondered why Martin would attack Zimmerman for merely asking why he was in the neighborhood. Maybe he didn't listen to Zimmerman's question and attacked because he was homophobic. Well, fear or hatred, do both count as homophobic?

Anyway, you've accused Zimmerman of racial prejudice... The dude is part black, shared a home with black people who were basically adopted, and had a black business partner. Did you decide he was a racist before learning all that? Did you prejudge him because he had lighter skin? It doesn't seem you care now, all that matters to you is he aint black enough. Of course your opinion of his supporters is also based on race, but when the black woman points to the elephant in the room you dont even respond because you cant call her names, or wont...

What did you think when you read her analysis? Did you bother? She told the truth. "There were black boys robbing homes, thats why George was suspicious of Martin". But it was Martin's behavior that caught Zimmerman's attention, not his skin color. If you listen to the recording Zimmerman was asked for race and said he wasn't sure but he thought he might be black. And once Martin got close enough Zimmerman confirmed yes he's black.

The good folk at NBC apparently did a little fancy editing (you'd be proud) and made it look like Zimmerman wasn't asked about the suspect's race and offered it instead. I'm not sure why that would matter, if I was describing a suspect to the police skin color and race would be part of the description. But NBC pushed the line that offering the suspect's skin color was evidence of racial prejudice when the evidence showed Zimmerman was asked and wasn't even sure.

You also decided black people were inherently less intelligent because the hoodie crowd believed media reports claiming Zimmerman murdered Martin. How does that work? Millions of people including me believed those media reports. Are we all inherently less intelligent than the people who didn't believe the reports? The hoodie crowd was a tiny minority of blacks but you decided they (and Martin) represent all blacks. Stereotype much? Hell, you stereotype while you're complaining about stereotypes.

The media reported a rash of burglaries happened in the neighborhood and you decided the word "rash" was racially prejudiced and proceeded to tell us they couldn't have suffered a rash of burglaries because your neighborhood growing up had more crime. You turned "told", "suspect", and "war zone", into accusations of racial prejudice. The reason your sense of justice isn't color blind is because racial prejudice permeates your ideology. Why? Because blacks have been mistreated by Democrats. Yeah, who hasn't? The people who dont vote for the Democrats are rolling their eyes at you.

And THAT is why we say "Black Lives Matter", not "All Lives Matter"

All lives matter is a better goal than mistreating all lives equally, but let us know when black lives stop electing the party that spent over 2 centuries persecuting black lives.

 

[Broken_Erika]

So blacks should vote green party?

 

[Hygro]

So if the problem that lead to the Martin tragedy entirely is the problem of the drug war, does that make Zimmerman a drug warrior in service of prohibition?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So if the problem that lead to the Martin tragedy entirely is the problem of the drug war, does that make Zimmerman a drug warrior in service of prohibition?

No, it makes Berzerker an oversimplifier of epic proportion.

 

[Synobun]

Anyway, you've accused Zimmerman of racial prejudice... The dude is part black, shared a home with black people who were basically adopted, and had a black business partner.

The "I have a black friend" defense rarely works. It's interesting you should use it here on CFC as well when it has recently been mocked and picked apart here in OT.

All lives matter is a better goal than mistreating all lives equally, but let us know when black lives stop electing the party that spent over 2 centuries persecuting black lives.

Are you blaming black people for living in a world where they are discriminated against? You may want to rephrase this if not.

 

[metalhead]

As for Martin being a violent criminal, he attacked somebody for being concerned by his presence in the neighborhood. I dont know what Zimmerman or Martin did in their lives and I dont care, all I care about is who attacked whom. In these debates Martin's supporters said his past wasn't relevant, I agree... Thats true for Zimmerman too. From what little I read neither was a saint, but one attacked and one got attacked and thats what matters.

Zimmerman initiated the encounter. You keep ignoring that rather obvious fact. He rolled up on Trayvon in his car and then got out and walked towards him. You can't argue that Trayvon didn't have a reason to feel threatened. He was doing nothing wrong and had no reason to think Zimmerman was just a concerned citizen. Every reason to think Zimmerman meant to do him harm, and that Trayvon was acting to protect himself.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Too many posts to respond to, hopefully people can figure out which posts I'm replying to:

What didn't look good for Zimmerman was saying Martin looked like he was on drugs. The rest of what happened that night you could say was stupid, reckless, etc. but he didn't have evil intent unless I'm missing something (pulling the gun out while your head is being bashed into the sidewalk is not evil).

'Rolled up' makes it sound like he pulled within a few feet of him. Wasn't he much farther than that, and the whole reason Zimmerman lost sight of him? 'He looks black' seems to confirm his distance as he wasn't that sure at first (but then the contradiction of how he got a good enough look at him to think he was on drugs).

'Suspicious' does not mean 'doing something illegal'. That's the whole reason people call the police so the police can check it out. I've had the police called on me for 'suspicious activity' and I was doing something entirely innocent. Martin could have reported Zimmerman for being suspicious.

Martin was innocently standing someplace waiting and hoping the rain would end. Zimmerman thought Martin was loitering, and loitering is suspicious. Because it's cold out, Martin puts his hands in his pockets, Zimmerman being off in the distance thinks he is reaching into his waistband, where typically people would carry a gun. Only later, after Zimmerman spends some time outside his truck, does Zimmerman realize it is cold outside (and comments this to the dispatcher, unlike the racial slur it was first mistakenly reported he had said).

Martin, perhaps seeing Zimmerman in the distance, sitting in his truck watching him, decides to cut between houses instead of taking the sidewalk, either as a shortcut to his house or to lose Zimmerman. Zimmerman, perhaps not realizing Martin saw him and is trying to avoid him, thinks this is even more suspicious, as it looks like a burglar casing a house.

Martin thought Zimmerman was 'stalking' him, when Zimmerman was innocently just looking to see which direction Martin went so he could tell the dispatcher. To evade Zimmerman, Martin cut between houses. Hiding in the bushes he sees Zimmerman get out of his truck. He thinks Zimmerman is coming to find him and do him harm, when Zimmerman had no intention of confronting him.

Zimmerman is told not to follow and he complies and turns around. Either Martin was already on his way to now confront Zimmerman, or through horrible luck, because Zimmerman turned around he is now heading towards Martin's hiding spot and now Martin thinks he is cornered. If he was cornered, Martin absolutely has the right to self defense. If not, then self defense is harder (but not impossible) to argue.

Earlier that month on a call he said about a suspect "I'd rather not approach him". Does that sound like someone out to 'hunt black people with a gun'? He got his gun, conceal carry permit in 2009 after several run-ins with a pit-bull "Big Boi". A cop suggested he get a gun. But the narrative is he got the gun to 'hunt black people'. He had the gun for three years before his run-in with Martin, and over two years before he ever called to report a single suspicious black person. If Zimmerman is a racist, it doesn't appear he was until after the Aug 2011 home invasion of a neighbor.

-

Tim, true I think "I lost him" would be a terrible defense when asked if he tried to deescalate the situation, but why wouldn't "I stopped searching for/following him when the dispatcher told me to" work better?

-

Sommerswerd, did you ever check out houses at night? Maybe some of his neighbors who were 'calling the police every week' were the stereotypical racists you are referring to that thinks just being black is suspicious. If I remember correctly, Zimmerman's reports about 'black males' had one call at 7:20 PM, another at 9 PM, and the rest were later into the night. I don't know any prospective home buyers who would look at houses at those times, perhaps MAYBE the 7:20, depending on when sunset is in Florida at that time of year. Calling a report once every two months doesn't sound like he was calling in 'every black person he sees' if the area is 20% black.

That's not to say there aren't other legitimate reasons for being near a house at night. Delivering pizzas I've had a few incidents with homeowner's because I'm not finding an address because few houses have a light shining on their house numbers so I need to approach the house on foot to try and see the number. Didn't have cops called on me, mostly because if I did I was gone before the cops came so I had no idea they were called. Homeowners have turned on their lights "What are you doing out there" but since I'm carrying a pizza box, even a Zimmerman could figure out what I was doing.
The two men outside the gates 'loitering in their car' at 1 AM could have just been waiting for a friend who lives in the community to let them in. I was doing basically the same thing when I got stopped for 'suspicious activity' but it was at 8 AM instead of 1 AM. Or those two men could have been waiting for a burglar to bring them some loot, and I could have been a stalker, nobody knows until the cops question people.

Only 3 of the 8 burglaries had a black suspect identified, the rest were unknown, correct? You are right, it would be wrong to assume the other 5 burglaries are also by black suspects. It's also wrong to assume they were committed by whites, or was not committed by blacks. It's simply not known. Zimmerman's neighbor who said "All burglaries in our area were committed by blacks" is wrong, he should have said "All burglaries where there is a known suspect was committed by blacks".
I heard another interview where instead of 'all' he said 'primarily'. I just assumed he was talking about cases where there was a witness to report the race of the suspect, not the cases with no witnesses.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Anyway, you've accused Zimmerman of racial prejudice... The dude is part black, shared a home with black people who were basically adopted, and had a black business partner. Did you decide he was a racist before learning all that? Did you prejudge him because he had lighter skin? It doesn't seem you care now, all that matters to you is he aint black enough. Of course your opinion of his supporters is also based on race, but when the black woman points to the elephant in the room you dont even respond because you cant call her names, or wont...

What did you think when you read her analysis? Did you bother? She told the truth. "There were black boys robbing homes, thats why George was suspicious of Martin". But it was Martin's behavior that caught Zimmerman's attention, not his skin color. If you listen to the recording Zimmerman was asked for race and said he wasn't sure but he thought he might be black. And once Martin got close enough Zimmerman confirmed yes he's black.

The good folk at NBC apparently did a little fancy editing (you'd be proud) and made it look like Zimmerman wasn't asked about the suspect's race and offered it instead. I'm not sure why that would matter, if I was describing a suspect to the police skin color and race would be part of the description. But NBC pushed the line that offering the suspect's skin color was evidence of racial prejudice when the evidence showed Zimmerman was asked and wasn't even sure.

You also decided black people were inherently less intelligent because the hoodie crowd believed media reports claiming Zimmerman murdered Martin. How does that work? Millions of people including me believed those media reports. Are we all inherently less intelligent than the people who didn't believe the reports? The hoodie crowd was a tiny minority of blacks but you decided they (and Martin) represent all blacks. Stereotype much? Hell, you stereotype while you're complaining about stereotypes.

The media reported a rash of burglaries happened in the neighborhood and you decided the word "rash" was racially prejudiced and proceeded to tell us they couldn't have suffered a rash of burglaries because your neighborhood growing up had more crime. You turned "told", "suspect", and "war zone", into accusations of racial prejudice. The reason your sense of justice isn't color blind is because racial prejudice permeates your ideology. Why? Because blacks have been mistreated by Democrats. Yeah, who hasn't? The people who dont vote for the Democrats are rolling their eyes at you.

All lives matter is a better goal than mistreating all lives equally, but let us know when black lives stop electing the party that spent over 2 centuries persecuting black lives.

There is no "elephant in the room" and I certainly haven't been avoiding talking about this. This is nothing but the same flawed, illogical, tired old refrain that (typically Republican) folks always think is some kind of great silver-bullet argument. "A black person agrees with me! So therefore there can't possibly be any racial prejudice in my argument/perspective! A black person! Look! Did I mention they were black?!?" It kinda makes me laugh a little, cause this was a favored go to of Crackerbox and civman ... they go dig up some internet article or video of a black person defending some racially prejudiced position or person and then say "Ha! A black person says it! So I'm right!"

There's so many things wrong with this argument, I won't get into it all, but one of the most glaring problems with this position... which they are predictably and invariably oblivious to is that they are ignoring all the vast majority of black people who disagree with them in favor of this one black person who they found to support their position. So in this case, you ignore all the black people supporting the idea that BLM stands for and call them misinformed, but this one black person who apparently shares your view is supposed to be proof of your argument? Please. There's a term for that... trotting out a token member of the group to prop up your position of prejudice against the group... "tokenism." Your argument is just textbook tokenism at its worst and can be dismissed out of hand on that basis alone.

Secondly, a related point is that when black people disagree with you, your argument is that race doesn't matter and that justice is colorblind and blacks don't have any special perspective on this issue that makes their opinions better informed/more valuable than yours... but then you go find a black person who agrees with you and try to make the argument that her position is a dispositive "elephant in the room", precisely because she is black and apparently her opinion as a black person comes with a special perspective that makes their opinions better informed/more valuable. Don't you see that this is a direct contradiction of your own argument? Your argument is contradictory and illogical.

Third, this woman is a neighbor and friend of Zimmerman, so her comments are just predictable, understandable, spinning in favor of her friend and neighbor. Her comments are similar to the guy who you cited earlier as "news reports" saying "all the suspects were black"... he was just shilling for his neighbor and so is she. Nothing to see here... In other words, her defense of Zimmerman isn't remotely exculpatory on the issue of Zimmerman's conduct. Finally, I have addressed this issue already, you just ignored it.

I'm glad you asked this question because this issue comes up alot in these types of discussions. The answer is that "blackness" is irrelevant. The basic premise you're raising is that only white people can be accused of racial prejudice against blacks. So if a person isn't white or is black they can't possibly be racially prejudiced against blacks. This is common, albeit faulty reasoning. Let me switch perspectives to illustrate. Would you agree that Northeastern, and West Coast, educated, ivory tower, liberal elites are prejudiced against rural, blue collar, uneducated Southerners, Appalachians and Middle-Americans? Can you see that this prejudice is there even if the liberal elites are white and the rural Appalachians are also white? So whites are perfectly capable of being prejudiced against other whites, and blacks are capable of being prejudiced towards blacks. So in other words, Zimmerman being "part African" or "part Hispanic" does not in-and-of itself mean that he can't be racially prejudiced towards blacks. Pointing out that Zimmerman is "not fully white" or "Hispanic" or "part black" is not effective at all in terms of claiming he can't be prejudiced. Although I understand why you've been trying to make that claim as its a common mistake.

Also Zimmerman doesn't have to "pay for the sins of the past"... just his own... and he doesn't even have to pay for those apparently... I know the answer to this from personal experience and I've already answered this question for you. It seems like maybe you ignored the answer because it wasn't what you wanted to hear? In short, to repeat... Not like Zimmerman. If Burgess burglarized a house in my neighborhood growing up, no one would have stalked and killed someone who looked and acted as Trayvon did. It's really that simple.

Also, again... I reject your premise that Trayvon was "behaving suspicious". You haven't remotely demonstrated suspicious behavior on the part of Trayvon.

The TL;DR is that your textbook appeal to tokenism is logically flawed, contradictory to your own positions and just an overall poor argument. It's not an "elephant in the room" being ignored... its a cockroach scurrying across the floor... hardly worth anyone's attention and I just squished it.

 

[metalhead]

'Rolled up' makes it sound like he pulled within a few feet of him. Wasn't he much farther than that, and the whole reason Zimmerman lost sight of him? 'He looks black' seems to confirm his distance as he wasn't that sure at first (but then the contradiction of how he got a good enough look at him to think he was on drugs).

Whether he is a few feet or several yards away is of little consequence. If you see someone driving along, then they stop and get out of their car while staring at you, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they mean to do you some type of harm. At that point it's fight or flight. Given that the other person has a car and you're on foot, you might not find flight to be a very good option.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Whether he is a few feet or several yards away is of little consequence. If you see someone driving along, then they stop and get out of their car while staring at you, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they mean to do you some type of harm. At that point it's fight or flight. Given that the other person has a car and you're on foot, you might not find flight to be a very good option.

Did he get out of his truck before he lost sight of Martin? Was it several yards or a hundred feet?

 

[metalhead]

It doesn't matter. Martin could see him, could see him stop his car, get out, and stare in Martin's direction. And even if it's a hundred feet - Zimmerman has a car. A hundred feet is a trivial distance.

The events are always being assessed from Zimmerman's point of view, the excuse is always, "Oh he's just neighborhood watch protecting the neighborhood from burglars!" But Trayvon Martin doesn't know him. All he sees is a dude getting out of his car and walking towards him. I don't know anyone who wouldn't perceive that as a threat. Trayvon said as much on the phone to his friend.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

-

Tim, true I think "I lost him" would be a terrible defense when asked if he tried to deescalate the situation, but why wouldn't "I stopped searching for/following him when the dispatcher told me to" work better?

-

Sure. That's why the dispatcher told him that. The dispatcher was trying to deescalate the situation by remote. The issue with using that as a defense if this had happened in a jurisdiction that didn't have Florida's ridiculous 'hunt as you please....errrr...stand your ground" law is in proving you did do as instructed.

A good prosecutor would use the fact that Zimmerman left to his own initiative had done nothing but escalate the situation to that point, while Martin had made numerous efforts to deescalate the situation with no dispatcher telling him to do so. So when Zimmerman claims that when instructed he finally started doing the right thing, but coincidentally that's the same time that Martin suddenly changed from making every effort to deescalate the situation into an aggressor that went on the attack, there's a hole in the theory that would require some patching.
That's the beauty of requiring efforts at deescalation as part of a self defense claim. Even if both parties are murderous jerks, if they both understand the law and know they need to establish that they did some stuff to deescalate the situation it most likely will deescalate. Zimmerman's own testimony establishes Martin's claim of self defense, were he alive to claim it. In a normal jurisdiction there is very little to support Zimmerman's claim, because there is no point where he made any effort to deescalate the situation.

Following the instruction to deescalate is certainly a better defense than pretending that losing him was an act of intentional deescalation. But the even better defense would be claiming that as the pursuit began Zimmerman was still thinking and realized on his own that he shouldn't escalate the situation further. Unfortunately for him the evidence of the 911 call removes that defense, but fortunately for him Florida has so gutted their violent crime laws with 'stand your ground' that you can literally get away with murder.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The events are always being assessed from Zimmerman's point of view,

Always? Or just in response to things being presented from Martin's point of view.

I understand Martin's view, if you read all of my post. Another reason he could have innocently cut between the buildings is to go where Zimmerman's vehicle couldn't go. If Zimmerman is not thinking "Oh, He thinks I'm a creep and just wants to get away from me" he could be thinking Martin was acting suspicious by going between the buildings.

I don't know the actual distance, maybe someone who has done more trial research can tell us. Just this 'he got a gun to go hunt black people' exaggeration stuff irks me. If it's exaggerations to counter the exaggerations on the other side, then so be it, but don't act like it's FACT.

 

[Berzerker]

No, it makes Berzerker an oversimplifier of epic proportion.

If I achieved such simplicity you should have no problem understanding it... But I can give you a slightly longer version if you like.

1) Democrats replace Jim Crow with a drug war focused on black urban populations
2) Black market resulting from Prohibition creates violent extra-judicial responses to disputes
3) Violent crime increases, homicide rates double like they did during the war on booze
4) Democrats write tougher drug laws to combat crime, exempt minors recruited - juvenile crime goes up
5) Long term mass incarceration of black men who seek employment in the black market
6) Gangs and guns spread out powered by drug profits and untapped markets
7) Daddy's dead or in jail - families are torn apart
8) Daddy's alive and finally out of jail, cant get job because of 'criminal' history
9) Blacks keep voting for Democrats while complaining about racial prejudice

The "I have a black friend" defense rarely works. It's interesting you should use it here on CFC as well when it has recently been mocked and picked apart here in OT

Being part black is the "I have a black friend" defense?

Are you blaming black people for living in a world where they are discriminated against? You may want to rephrase this if not.

You just did rephrase it... I'm explaining that black Democrats support the party responsible for much of their misery, yet they ignore that reality. Well, BLM did give Hillary some guff so maybe the tide is finally changing.

Zimmerman initiated the encounter. You keep ignoring that rather obvious fact. He rolled up on Trayvon in his car and then got out and walked towards him. You can't argue that Trayvon didn't have a reason to feel threatened. He was doing nothing wrong and had no reason to think Zimmerman was just a concerned citizen. Every reason to think Zimmerman meant to do him harm, and that Trayvon was acting to protect himself.

Thats not true, Martin approached Zimmerman's car and ran off. He was probably already out of sight when Zimmerman left his truck. Martin ran and hid and Zimmerman went thru the T in the paths and told the dispatcher he was gone but probably headed for a rear entrance to the complex. When Zimmerman returned thru the T to his truck Martin came out of hiding and attacked him after a brief conversation.

 

[Berzerker]

There is no "elephant in the room" and I certainly haven't been avoiding talking about this. This is nothing but the same flawed, illogical, tired old refrain that (typically Republican) folks always think is some kind of great silver-bullet argument. "A black person agrees with me!

I shouldn't fuss over details but I didn't exactly agree with her, she said George was suspicious of Martin because black boys had been robbing homes in the neighborhood. Thats true, but Zimmerman started watching Martin because of suspicious behavior, not his skin color. Small distinction, but relevant for those who've been accusing Zimmerman of targeting black people. But I was a latecomer to her truth, you're just a no-show.

So therefore there can't possibly be any racial prejudice in my argument/perspective! A black person! Look! Did I mention they were black?!?" It kinda makes me laugh a little, cause this was a favored go to of Crackerbox and civman ... they go dig up some internet article or video of a black person defending some racially prejudiced position or person and then say "Ha! A black person says it! So I'm right!"

What exactly did she say that was racially prejudiced?

There's so many things wrong with this argument, I won't get into it all, but one of the most glaring problems with this position... which they are predictably and invariably oblivious to is that they are ignoring all the vast majority of black people who disagree with them in favor of this one black person who they found to support their position. So in this case, you ignore all the black people supporting the idea that BLM stands for and call them misinformed

BLM stands for attacking neighborhood watch volunteers? If not, they dont support you. The media told people Zimmerman murdered Martin and reactions were based on that information, the hoodie crowd was part of that response. That was misinformation and thats being generous, the media repeatedly lied. But you think opinion polls of blacks at the time they were told these lies represents how they feel now after seeing the facts? Thats an unkind assumption to make about black people. I believed the media reports and I changed my mind when confronted with facts.

but this one black person who apparently shares your view is supposed to be proof of your argument? Please. There's a term for that... trotting out a token member of the group to prop up your position of prejudice against the group... "tokenism." Your argument is just textbook tokenism at its worst and can be dismissed out of hand on that basis alone.

At least you didn't call her "Auntie Tom"... How many neighbors did you quote? Why is your opinion more valuable than hers?

Secondly, a related point is that when black people disagree with you, your argument is that race doesn't matter and that justice is colorblind and blacks don't have any special perspective on this issue that makes their opinions better informed/more valuable than yours... but then you go find a black person who agrees with you and try to make the argument that her position is a dispositive "elephant in the room", precisely because she is black and apparently her opinion as a black person comes with a special perspective that makes their opinions better informed/more valuable. Don't you see that this is a direct contradiction of your own argument? Your argument is contradictory and illogical.

I didn't go find her, I linked a Reuters article using the word "rash" to describe the burglaries because for some bizarre reason you decided the word rash is racially prejudiced. I read the article and saw her interview and I quoted it because she explained the situation. Even better, she's black... You've been telling us black opinions matter more, but apparently thats just another double standard because hers doesn't. She's just a shill according to you... Funny how that works, the opinions of people who lived the experience dont matter more because other people from outside know better. Sound familiar? You've done to her what you accused me of doing to you.

Third, this woman is a neighbor and friend of Zimmerman, so her comments are just predictable, understandable, spinning in favor of her friend and neighbor. Her comments are similar to the guy who you cited earlier as "news reports" saying "all the suspects were black"... he was just shilling for his neighbor and so is she. Nothing to see here... In other words, her defense of Zimmerman isn't remotely exculpatory on the issue of Zimmerman's conduct. Finally, I have addressed this issue already, you just ignored it.

She's friends with a racist who hunts black people? I didn't cite the guy as a news report, the news reporter interviewed him. I didn't link that article because he was interviewed, I linked it because it identified 8 burglary reports in 14 months. Remember? Before you changed the subject to him you wanted evidence for a rash of burglaries. I didn't quote 'the guy', you did that. You wanted to argue with him as if he was me.

It's not an "elephant in the room" being ignored... its a cockroach scurrying across the floor... hardly worth anyone's attention and I just squished it.

So you kill poor little critters too... I just trap them in a cup and escort them outside