Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Ryika]

Point of order, in Florida you are legally permitted to stand your ground. If someone is walking towards you, you have a legal right to stay where you are, and violently fend off the person if they get within arm's length. So someone following you is, in fact, a situation where violence, up to and including lethal violence, is fully justified under the law if they continue to walk towards you while you're standing still. Even if you yell at the person to come at you.

In my opinion, that's a pretty silly law then.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In my opinion, that's a pretty silly law then.

Despite all of it's good intentions, it is well beyond silly and into dangerously stupid. Which is what makes the Zimmerman case such a thorn in the side for people.

 

[metalhead]

In my opinion, that's a pretty silly law then.

Regardless of the law, I'm still not clear on why anyone thinks that a guy stalking them doesn't pose a threat that one is justified in fighting back against. Whether one is legally entitled to stand one's ground or not - if someone is stalking you, they typically mean you harm, right? Doesn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself? This is exactly why Neighborhood Watch is supposed to be watching for trouble, and they're then supposed to retreat and call the cops if they see any. Not stalk someone who appears "suspicious," because that person might justifiably feel threatened and the situation can easily escalate.

 

[Ryika]

Ethics is actually irrelevant to the drafting of law.

Not really. In Germany, we think 14-year olds can be mature enough to give meaningful consent.

That's why we craft our laws allow adults to have sex with 14-year olds and only pursue legal actions if the custodians of the 14-year old request it (and only if their partner is over 21), and in such cases, the judges then go and find out whether the 14-year old was indeed able to give meaningful consent or not, and if it is determined that he or she was, then the two of them can continue doing what they have been doing. And you're allowed to have sex with anybody over 16. That's true for anybody, even a 70yo can have sex with a 14-year old.

America, while acknowledging that some individuals under between 14-16/18 (depending on the state) can give consent, go the opposite route and think outlawing sex with those individuals as a general rule is the way to go. That's a difference in ethics - do you want to allow maximum freedom (not only for adults, but also for the 14-16yo who are capable of giving reasonable consent), or do you want to catch as many cases of potential abuse as possible by making an action that can be entirely consensual, illegal. Ironically, the "land of freedom" has chosen the latter, while Germany has chosen the former, and both countries have crafted their laws around that.

We can look at the intent of stand your ground laws. A good man shouldn't have to stand by and watch a criminal run off with a purse. A good man shouldn't have to swallow his pride and back down from an intimidating thug. That's all very fine, ethically, and I agree completely.

But in attempting to draft that into law you immediately hit an insurmountable obstacle, in that the law recognizes no such thing as a good man. The law has to be drafted to apply to all men. So the choice becomes whether to be overly restrictive of good men, or to allow latitude that bad men can exploit.

You were chasing the purse snatcher. I was chasing you because I saw someone running after a guy from the neighborhood and I'm the sort of thug who always looks for a scrap. If you are under no obligation to avoid a confrontation then neither am I. When someone winds up dead here it's extreme if you kill someone that was just a purse snatcher, and outright tragic if I kill you, the good guy. So we prefer our laws that prevent both those outcomes by making the chase a defining element in the crime. We don't have any practical alternative, ethical or not.

But that's again where German legislation and I disagree with you. It's not even a question of extremes, it's not either "We allow people to stand their ground!" or "We prevent people from acting on their own!", the sensible thing seems to be somewhere between the two. I again very much agree with German law here - allow people to make that decision whether it's worth pursuing a person who has wronged them for themselves autonomously, and if it leads to a situation where they have to act in self-defense, then tough luck for the attacker. They've brought that onto themselves. What we don't allow them to take action that is done with the intent of creating a situation where they can claim self-defense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But that's again where German legislation and I disagree. It's not even a question of extremes, it's not either "We allow people to stand their ground!" or "We prevent people from acting on their own!", the sensible thing seems to be somewhere between the two. I again very much agree with German law here - allow people to make that decision whether it's worth pursuing a person who has wronged you for themselves autonomously, and if it leads to a situation where they have to act in self-defense, then tough luck for the attacker. They've brought that onto themselves. What we don't allow them to take action that is done with the intent of creating a situation where they can claim self-defense.

Irrelevant might have been too strong a word. The point is that in the crafting of law you are pursuing some ethical goal, but in the end result it is the law that matters. Germany as well as every state in the US is intending to produce some sort of "limit the bad guy without interfering with the good guy" balance. Exact location of that intended balance possibly having a slight variance. But the law as written can have a much greater range of variance, not because of intent, but just in the way it is crafted.

Trust me, no one agitating for a stand your ground law ever intends that a thug suddenly has free rein to stand in the sidewalk saying "go around me _______" until someone takes offense or doesn't do it, and then they get to kill them. However that is what Florida law makers managed to produce.

The purse snatcher ran into an alley, and fearful of an ambush if I ran in after him I just pulled out my gun and shot him in the back as he ran. The US gun lobby wants this to be somewhere around the balance point of the law. They had a lot of influence in the crafting of Florida's law.

 

[Ryika]

Irrelevant might have been too strong a word. The point is that in the crafting of law you are pursuing some ethical goal, but in the end result it is the law that matters. Germany as well as every state in the US is intending to produce some sort of "limit the bad guy without interfering with the good guy" balance. Exact location of that intended balance possibly having a slight variance. But the law as written can have a much greater range of variance, not because of intent, but just in the way it is crafted.

I think German law actually works reasonably well when it comes to that. Sometimes you have a case where you're under the strong assumption that the person has fabricated a situation where they can claim self defense but can't prove it, but in the vast majority of cases, actual self-defense and fabricated "self-defense" are easy to distinguish from each other. Not that it even happens that often, These few cases where a person might have intentionally caused a situation where they "needed to defend themselves" are a drawback that we're willing to live with for the benefit of being allowed to make that decision to not be a helpless victim. After all, while it does generate some controversy every now and then, it does not damage the main intent of any law, to make sure people are dissuaded from committing those crimes. That is again in the context of Germany of course, I am well aware that America has some serious problems with law-making.

Trust me, no one agitating for a stand your ground law ever intends that a thug suddenly has free rein to stand in the sidewalk saying "go around me _______" until someone takes offense or doesn't do it, and then they get to kill them. However that is what Florida law makers managed to produce.

But that's a problem caused by how the law is written, not by the intent behind it. Again, I very much agree that these Stand your ground laws sound awful, but the solution is not to craft a law that goes into the opposite extreme. Because you can craft a law that allows people to pursue people and at the same time disallow this here:

The purse snatcher ran into an alley, and fearful of an ambush if I ran in after him I just pulled out my gun and shot him in the back as he ran.

It's really easy, too. Just write it so it allows people to go after him if they think it's worth it, but instead of allowing them to instigate violence when they feel things are becoming dangerous, force them to abort the chase.

That's really all you have to do. Allow people to pursue, don't allow people to do illegal things if they're not in immediate danger. Shooting somebody in the back is clearly not covered by that, because they were running away from you. If you think there's an ambush waiting, stop chasing. Or continue at the risk of your own life.

Only if that fear of an ambush has materialized and you're surrounded by 7 ninjas who are clearly trying to harm you may you draw your Katana and start slashing in self-defense.

 

[metalhead]

Define "immediate." If someone is stalking me, it's reasonable to assume they wish to do me harm. Likewise, it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman meant to do harm to Trayvon Martin, on account of the stalking and his refusal to stand down when instructed to by the police dispatcher.

Should you have to wait until the stalker comes at you before you decide to defend yourself? What if retreat is impossible?

 

[Ryika]

Define "immediate." If someone is stalking me, it's reasonable to assume they wish to do me harm. Likewise, it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman meant to do harm to Trayvon Martin, on account of the stalking and his refusal to stand down when instructed to by the police dispatcher.

Little correction here: The police dispatcher didn't actually instruct him to stand down,they said that they "don't need (him) to do that" (following Martin). And immediately after they told him that, he stopped running after Martin (as in, the running noise that was audible before, stopped) and says that "He (Martin) ran". He then asked the dispatcher to tell the police officers to meet him at his home.

Should you have to wait until the stalker comes at you before you decide to defend yourself? What if retreat is impossible?

No, like I said, I can see why Martin thought he was in danger and that he thought he acted in self-defense. If Zimmerman got physical with him, then it might even have been reasonable self-defense, but we don't know that to be the case, and the autopsy didn't show and evidence that points towards that conclusion. To me it seems more likely that Martin pounced on him after Zimmerman lost him, and that is simply not self-defense (That's based on Zimmerman's claim only, we don't have any witnesses for that, but the fact that he stops running during the dispatch call and lets Martin get away, supports his version of the events - the alternative would be that after more than a minute of not running he decided to go after him after all and managed to catch up with him). I can understand Martin's reaction, but that's not self-defense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

An interesting point on the dispatcher telling him not to chase...

In my city if you are going to identify yourself as "neighborhood watch" that neighborhood watch had some sort of organizational meeting attended by a representative from the city and/or a deputy from the sheriff's department. Otherwise you aren't part of a neighborhood watch, you are part of a gang. At that organizational meeting the prospective members of this neighborhood watch get a pretty thorough laying down of what is, and is not, expected of them. And being armed and running after "suspects" are both on the not expected list. They won't say that you can't carry if you have a permit, but they will tell you straight out that if you have any use for a gun as a neighborhood watch you did it wrong. And one way to do it absolutely wrong is getting into a foot chase.

So when the dispatcher was telling him that he didn't need to be doing that it should not have been news to him.

 

[metalhead]

No, like I said, I can see why Martin thought he was in danger and that he thought he acted in self-defense. If Zimmerman got physical with him, then it might even have been reasonable self-defense, but we don't know that to be the case, and the autopsy didn't show and evidence that points towards that conclusion. To me it seems more likely that Martin pounced on him after Zimmerman lost him, and that is simply not self-defense (That's based on Zimmerman's claim only, we don't have any witnesses for that, but the fact that he stops running during the dispatch call and lets Martin get away, supports his version of the events - the alternative would be that after more than a minute of not running he decided to go after him after all and managed to catch up with him). I can understand Martin's reaction, but that's not self-defense.

Well if you believe Martin acted as a reasonable person would in believing he was in danger, then I don't see how you can say he wasn't taking reasonable steps to defend himself. Whether it falls under a specific legal definition of "self defense" isn't really relevant. His actions were justified based on the actions of Zimmerman. As there aren't any reasonable circumstances where a private citizen would stalk another private citizen - we have trained police for that - the whole episode is necessarily Zimmerman's fault.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well if you believe Martin acted as a reasonable person would in believing he was in danger, then I don't see how you can say he wasn't taking reasonable steps to defend himself. Whether it falls under a specific legal definition of "self defense" isn't really relevant. His actions were justified based on the actions of Zimmerman. As there aren't any reasonable circumstances where a private citizen would stalk another private citizen - we have trained police for that - the whole episode is necessarily Zimmerman's fault.

Fault, yes. Zimmerman/Martin is a situation under Florida law where the survivor, whichever it was, could easily claim self defense. Whether a black teenager would fare as well in a Florida court or not is a dubious proposition, but as far as the letter of Florida law there was no one to convict either way.

 

[Berzerker]

If Martin was white, you wouldn't be getting "lumped in" with him. That's the point. If the burglary suspects were white, Martin wouldn't be getting "lumped in" with them... that's the point. If the burglary suspects were white you wouldn't have people saying that white guys are suspicious... that's the point. If the 3 burglary suspects were white you wouldn't have people saying that all the suspects are white... that's the point.

I said if I was black I wouldn't want to be lumped in with a violent criminal. You said I dont speak for blacks (as if they do want to be lumped in with violent criminals while you talk about stereotypes?) and that many wore hoodies in solidarity with Martin. Those people were told Zimmerman murdered Martin, so they weren't showing solidarity with a violent criminal - I hope not anyway. And I speak for myself, my skin color wouldn't matter. I know black people have been mistreated for centuries and many are pissed off, if that means they'll side with the violent criminal over the neighborhood watch volunteer because the criminal was blacker than the victim, then their perspective is in need of adjustment, not mine.

Now, if Martin was white he wouldn't fit the profile of the suspects, but if he was behaving strangely he'd still draw attention. If young white men were robbing homes in the area and I was an unfamiliar young white man (behaving suspiciously) I'd be lumped in with those suspects. If some of those young white men were violent I'd be lumped in with them too. When black communities are the victims of white men, who becomes the suspect if not white men? It doesn't matter if other crimes were committed by blacks, those white criminals have given the community a reason to be concerned about white men.

Thats just nature, skin color is only relevant when it helps to identify possible threats. Thats why some seemingly defenseless critters are still around, their colors inform other critters to avoid eating them. If white men had been robbing the neighbors Martin wouldn't be a suspect, I'd be a suspect.

yes I realize this... that precisely identifies the problem with your perspective and neatly explains where this flawed argument you keep trying to make is coming from.

Justice is color blind... and you think thats the problem? Zimmerman's gotta pay for the sins of the past? He's a walking melting pot of racial diversity with blood from at least 3 continents including Africa. But I guess he aint black enough, maybe if he was black and white like Obama. I dont know, that might not be enough either. How black does one have to be before they're not guilty of racial prejudice for profiling? If young black men are robbing a black neighborhood, how do the other residents view unfamiliar young black men who behave suspiciously? Are they guilty of racial prejudice if they're concerned? The elephant is in the room and you're ignoring him.

Hold up...he might have grabbed him to keep him in place (I'm not saying he did, just going with your hypothetical) which you admit is "not okay in itself." Then you go on with that not "justifying an attack."

In your world just what do you expect happens if you grab some passerby to "keep them in place"?

In that case Zimmerman should be in jail and I'd owe an apology to Martin and his family. And it is possible, that would be the only logical avenue a prosecutor had to convict Zimmerman. I'd be interested to see how committed the state was to that approach. They did have a witness other than Zimmerman, the girl was talking to Martin when the fight began. And I remember reading her testimony and I think she said something like "get off me" but I dont know if that was Martin or not. If I was the prosecutor I'd try to show Zimmerman did grab Martin first thereby justifying at least a manslaughter charge.

If she's right and Martin was alleged to have sucker punched Zimmerman, nobody would have time or reason to say get off me. But if Zimmerman grabbed him first there'd be a second or two during which Martin could have told him to get off before proceeding to beat him up. On the other hand, it looks like Martin came out of hiding to start the confrontation while Zimmerman never took his gun out until he was on his back getting pummeled and a struggle for the gun followed.

But it could have been Zimmerman on his back telling Martin to get off him. Besides, Martin wasn't going any where. He stood their talking to Zimmerman because he wanted to stand their and talk to him. Zimmerman knew the cops were on the way and he had just been reminded not to follow. I assume they dont want neighborhood watch people making citizens arrests, especially based on something short of probable cause. Zimmerman was told by the cops the incident was recorded and he was relieved, even grateful. If he initiated contact the recording would show he lied. Reasonable doubt, check.

 

[Berzerker]

If the burglary suspects were white, you wouldn't have people joining the neighborhood watch to put down this "rash of burglaries" with deadly force. You'd have people chalking it up to "meh its probably just kids getting into mischief, trying to score booze or drugs... no biggie"

Well of course, if I see the stranger breaking into my home is white I'm just so relieved I give 'em a few bucks and send them on their way. My God, your rebuttal is to argue the people down there only got concerned enough to organize security because the criminals were black? So white people dont form neighborhood watches when white kids are breaking into their homes? If I hear a neighbor was burgled I'd consider getting a gun. I'm surprised you dont understand the fear created by home invasions. Deadly force wasn't used until Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete. If you think that doesn't justify deadly force you dont believe in self defense. So, how many fights did you get in as a kid and how many did you lose because you didn't defend yourself?

So now its 8 in 14 months instead of 8 in 15 months?

I didn't say it was 8 in 15, the link says records showed 8 in 14

That doesn't remotely impact my point that the burglaries were rare, and don't justify Zimmerman's response. Your claim that it "was enough" is just circular reasoning. I say that the burglaries were relatively low, and thus didn't justify Zimmerman's clear intent to use deadly force. Your response is to say "it was enough" because they formed a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman was justified cause he was in the neighborhood watch. But its all just circular reasoning, because the formation of the watch and more specifically his decision to join was just his racial prejudice, manifested as an overreaction to the non-existent burglary crisis.

You say burglaries were "relatively" low. Relative to what? Your point was other communities had more crime, therefore these people didn't experience a rash of burglaries and lacked the right to be concerned. You're doing what you accused me of doing - telling people how they should feel. Read the reuters article, there were dozens of incidents and several young black males were identified by witnesses. Now if they had 3 black burglary suspects with a possible 4th, should we just assume the other 4 were old white women? The known suspects (thats redundant) define the profile. If they had suspects who were young white men they'd join the profile.

"You imagine" their efforts deterred some burglaries? Of course you do. Because you are emotionally and ideologically committed to the idea that Zimmerman was justified. But your imaginings are not evidence of anything, except your own subjective biases.

I imagine the increased vigilance deterred some burglaries because thats what increased vigilance is supposed to do; besides, the 1st link credits Zimmerman with possibly interrupting a 9th attempt . And you're the one who has brought emotion and ideology into this, my position is based on who started the fight. I dont care what color they were or whose ancestors suffered more. But I do find this competition between victims to decide right and wrong rather amusing and unpleasant at the same time.

"Was that done because the robbery rate was steady or declining?" you ask?... First of all, we are talking about burglary not robbery, but rather than do what you always try to do to me, I'll just assume you mean robbery in the colloquial sense ("they robbed my house", ie burglary).

What exactly do I always do to you? I didn't accuse you of racial prejudice over the word 'rash' or 'suspect' or 'war zone'. And now you want to argue about the definitions of robbery and burglary?

So putting that aside, a rule of thumb for media headlines is that when they are posed in the form of a question, the answer is usually no. So no, the neighborhood watch wasn't formed "because the "robbery" rate was steady or declining." As I explained previously, it was formed as a manifestation of irrational racial prejudice, and in Zimmerman's case in particular, using the relatively low incidents of burglary to irrationally justify his pre-existing racially prejudiced attitudes.

What headline? So was the robbery rate increasing? And while I consider burglaries to be robberies, the latter includes thefts that dont involve breaking into homes. So there could be 8 burglaries and dozens of incidents including thefts that weren't reported as burglaries.

Now turning attention to the quote from the link.... "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"... is literally the same thing as saying. "George Zimmerman's friend spun the story in Zimmerman's favor." Look again. Frank Taaffe is Zimmerman's friend that is referred to in the first sentence of the article... that's not a "media report indicating increasing burglary rate" as you characterized it. It's just Zimmerman's buddy spinning the story to support his friend, which is hardly persuasive evidence of anything, right? I mean I don't think you did that on purpose... I think you probably just missed that and instead saw what you wanted to see, right?

I'm aware the article's author interviewed him. So what? The author used the word "spate", not Taafe. But you were accusing me of racial prejudice for using the word "rash" and that word was used in the reuters article.

You used the phase "rash of burglaries"... Anyway the word is irrelevant, which is why I asked you to define it.

You edited my response and removed my explanation for the question.

"And why are you blaming me for the word 'rash'? That was how the media was describing the situation. Complain to them, write a letter to the editor about why its racial prejudice to say a rash of burglaries occurred."

And you didn't answer the question either... Why are you blaming me for using the word 'rash' when media used the word to describe what happened? Now you asked me to define "rash" because its irrelevant? You used the word to accuse me of racial prejudice. Is Reuters guilty of racial prejudice too? Its only irrelevant now that you see media reported a rash of burglaries and you're looking for cover.

what matters is not the word itself, but what you meant by it, which you've answered and I've debunked.

I dont live there and I dont write news reports, if you dont think the word rash should have been used to describe what happened, complain to them.

I don't want to derail into something irrelevant, like arguing about the word "rash".

Then dont use it as a straw man to call people racially prejudiced.

The point is that you had the erroneous impression that there were a lot of burglaries and that this in turn justified Zimmerman's actions. You were wrong. Even by your new 8 in 14 month metric. Burglaries were rare and Zimmerman's response was not remotely justified. That is the meat and potatoes of the issue.

Zimmerman was justified because he was attacked, I wouldn't care if there were any burglaries.

As for your second link which says "Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood. In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men." Notice that this is NOT what the police department says. The police say 8 reports in 14 months. (Or 8 in 15 months, depending on which fake news site you believe ). So who were these "dozens of reports" reported to? Dey mama an'em? It's just gossip, and hyperbole, largely fueled by pre-existing racial prejudice. The fact that residents are saying "Oh there's been DOZENS! HUNDREDS! THOUSANDS OF BURGLARIES!! AND ALL BY BLACK MEN!!" is not evidence, its not credible, its just the telephone game. One lady says she saw a black kid, and another says "he must have been the one who did it" and so on... until the legend has mushroomed into "I heard there was a group of black gang members riding around casing houses". The whole process is not unusual at all, it very predictable. As I've already said, that's the predictable pattern, a couple black guys commit a crime in the neighborhood and everyone starts the rumor mill, and suddenly we've got people claiming that their neighbor said that there's been hundreds of black guys casing the neighborhood, and so on.

I dont know what qualifies as a report. I assume the burglary reports were filed and investigated whereas other incidents didn't rise to that level. For example, the burglary that happened 3 weeks before the shooting was solved when a report of a stolen bicycle led to the responsible kid a day later. Was the stolen bike one of the 8 burglaries? If so, that was 2 burglaries within a month of the shooting. I trust the people down there to accurately describe the situation and the fear they felt.

 

[Berzerker]

I guess according to Berzerker Richard Nixon is a Democrat now. Weird.

Yeah, imagine black people being turned off by your murderous racism. It's shocking I tell you.

lol, I haven't murdered anyone and if Zimmerman was a murderer he wouldn't have waited for his head to be bouncing off the concrete before pulling his gun. And I'd think racists would agree with you about punishing Zimmerman, they'd have no love for him, he's mixed race and part black. Racial (and tribal) purists all over the world consider mixing a betrayal and worse than being a different race. And of course blacks were voting Democrat long before Zimmerman killed Martin, so you're 0-3 already and that doesn't include Nixon.

I mean seriously are you paying attention to anything? Whatever happened in the past (and it's certainly true that Johnson, a Democrat, began the policy approach that turned into the drug war under Nixon), today it's the Democrats who want to roll back the drug war and the Republicans who won't hear of it. The current Republican attorney general, for example, has said that people who smoke weed are bad people, and has indicated that he wants to rigorously enforce federal law with respect to marijuana, going so far as to issue an order to review federal funds going to local law enforcement agencies that don't enforce federal law.

This is all accurate...and Democrats deserve their share of blame for this crap...but for you to pretend that Republicans are blameless is just preposterous. Republicans are, in my considered opinion, more to blame than Democrats are. Republicans are the ones who manipulated hysteria about crime to make white supremacy an issue of political mobilization. John Ehrlichman has already admitted this:
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Nixon enforced laws, Congress wrote them... And the Democrats controlled the House for decades from the 30s to the 90s and usually with overwhelming numbers. I'm not pretending Republicans are blameless, I'm not debating Republicans. I'm debating people who probably support the Democrats who like to throw around accusations of racial prejudice and racism while ignoring the fact they support a party that has ruined the lives of millions of black people... and millions more who aren't black.

According to Zimmerman's self-serving testimony, anyway.

The girl Martin was talking to heard their conversation, she confirmed Zimmerman asked Martin why he was in the neighborhood.

As to the drug war, I'm with you that it's been an unmitigated disaster, and the Democrats certainly get some of the blame. The Republicans are just as much to blame, and I don't know how far back today's independents go (e.g. the Green Party and the Libertarian Party). I would trace the beginnings of the modern "war on drugs" not to Prohibition, but to the Controlled Substances Act (1970), which established the "schedule" of drugs we know so well today and led to the creation of the DEA. Nixon signed that one, not Reagan, but it was unquestionably a bipartisan effort, 342-7 in the House and 54-0 in the Senate according to Wikipedia. Congress hasn't been so unanimous about what day of the week it is lately. Again, I don't know how many people here voted in the elections of '68-'70, and I don't know how many alternative parties or candidates there were at the time.

That vote total is stunning, not just how strong the support was in the House but almost half the senate didn't even vote. The Democrats wrote that bill and they wrote the '86 (?) bill for Reagan to sign... They wrote the Marijuana Tax Act too starting that war to give the bureaucrats a replacement for the war on booze.

Pure misdirection... and its obvious why you've switched to this tack. But even still, your argument is fundamentally flawed. Essentially you're arguing that all the historical prejudice and institutional mistreatment of black people has been the work of the Democrats alone, and I (Sommerswerd) along with other black people have been nevertheless supporting them, voting for them all along, so its my/our (black people's) fault... which is utterly preposterous.

I wasn't even talking to you... You're quoting my response to Egon. I've tried to debate the facts of this case with you, but you're not interested. You keep changing the subject to the treatment of blacks by the culture while accusing me of racial prejudice because I used a word ("rash") from a news report. So I'm happy to discuss the culture and the system... And the moment I do you accuse me of changing the subject. You're trying to be a jerk and it shows. I didn't say the Democrats acted alone, I dont care about Republicans. They are not relevant, only the party blacks overwhelmingly support is relevant. If blacks overwhelmingly voted for the GOP and Republicans were shipping them off into the Jim Crow Gulag, I'd still be pointing out your hypocrisy.

So... about that, one at a time: I didn't vote for those Democrats, nor did any black person cause we weren't allowed to vote back then. George Washington wasn't a Democrat, he supported slavery because he owned slaves, and I didn't vote for him, nor did any black person for that matter. So your point in bringing that up is preposterous and debunked.

I didn't say you voted for Washington, I said Democrats supported slavery.

On to the next one... I didn't vote for those Democrats, and probably nor did any black person because, among other factors the Klu Klux Klan wouldn't let us vote. Certainly no black person who is alive today voted for them. So again, bringing that up in the context of the point you are trying to make is completely nonsensical and irrelevant... ie debunked.

The Democrats who replaced slavery with Jim Crow are long gone, but their legacy survived into the 60s and it did so because Democrats elected by blacks either supported Jim Crow or ignored it. But the Democrats replaced Jim Crow with the drug war and that was after the voting rights act and with Democrats in solid control of the House. How did blacks reward the party of Jim Crow who replaced it with a drug war? Overwhelming support...

On to the next one... Wrong, that was Nixon, as has already been pointed out. But more importantly and more relevant to the flawed argument you are trying to make... I didn't vote for those Democrats, nor did most (any) black people alive today... so again, the point you are trying to make is completely debunked.

The Democrats controlled the House, they wrote the drug laws, they created the DEA. I dont know how old you are, how would I know if you voted for people 50 years or 30 years ago? I do know blacks were voting Democrat back then, so I dont know what you think has been debunked.

Now I guess you will want to move the goalpost to Tipp O'Neil, and Clinton (ie the crime bill), but again I didn't vote for those Democrats, because I was a child when those guys were in office. So again, the point you are trying to make is debunked.

I asked if you voted for Democrats and you're citing the Democrats you didn't vote for while complaining about moving goal posts. Did you vote for Obama? Gore? More recent Democrats? Do you know any blacks who voted for Clinton?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Those people were told Zimmerman murdered Martin, so they weren't showing solidarity with a violent criminal - I hope not anyway...I know black people have been mistreated for centuries and many are pissed off, if that means they'll side with the violent criminal over the neighborhood watch volunteer because the criminal was blacker than the victim, then their perspective is in need of adjustment, not mine.

They weren't "told" Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. They heard the facts of the case and came to their own conclusion that Zimmerman wrongfully killed Trayvon and got away with it because of Trayvon's race. You refuse to accept this because you inherently undervalue their intelligence vis-a-vis your own. Your comment is basically implying that the people supporting Trayvon are too stupid to make up their own minds... which is not really surprising, given your position. And your repeated characterization of Trayvon as a violent criminal is way off base... but also makes sense given your position, and just further illustrates the point I keep making. His race alone makes him a "criminal" in the minds of many, which is why he is dead. Your repeated erroneous characterizations just further illustrate this. If anyone was a violent criminal its Zimmerman.

Now, if Martin was white he wouldn't fit the profile of the suspects, but if he was behaving strangely he'd still draw attention.

But again, Trayvon wasn't "behaving strangely"... he was just black, and when you are black, racially prejudiced people always think you're "suspicious" no matter what you are doing, unless they already know you. BTW I noticed you've moved the goalpost again from "suspicious" to "behaving strangely", and I suspect that wasn't accidental.

If young white men were robbing homes in the area and I was an unfamiliar young white man (behaving suspiciously) I'd be lumped in with those suspects.

No, you wouldn't, and there's a pretty well known term for why you're completely oblivious to that reality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When black communities are the victims of white men, who becomes the suspect if not white men?

I'm glad you asked this question because it relates directly to the topic of the thread and perfectly illustrates one of the points of the thread. So to answer your question... When black communities are the victims of white men, the suspects do not become "white men" in general, or "white men who are strangers" or "white men behaving suspiciously", because that would be preposterous and unfair, just as it is preposterous and unfair when it happens to us.

When black communities are the victims of white men, the suspects become the person who actually committed the harm against the community, and people who are specifically connected to that actual person because they are in the same organization with the same practices and goals as the person who harmed the community and thus have an inherent tendency to engage in the same kind of conduct that the specific wrongdoer did.

For example, when a policeman shoots a black person in the back at a traffic stop, we don't consider "white men who are strangers and acting suspiciously" to be suspects, as that makes no sense. We consider the police to be suspects, because they wrongfully shoot or harmed or mistreated someone and then claimed it was "standard procedure"... so since its standard procedure, we can expect the same or similar conduct from all police, so we are suspicious of police, because they are inherently predisposed to mistreating us as part of their standard procedure.

So when George Zimmerman stalks and kills Trayvon, the suspect is George Zimmerman, not "all Peruvian Jews, who I don't know and are acting suspiciously", not "white guys" not "Hispanics" and not "neighborhood watch people"... but when Emmanuel Burgess is suspected (and arrested) for a burglary in your neighborhood, suddenly "all black males who I subjectively don't know and who I subjectively deem suspicious" which essentially boils down to "any black stranger" is a suspect. And that's the norm. Its not just you, many people treat black people this way. But its still unfair and wrong.

Justice is color blind... and you think thats the problem?

No, justice is not color blind, never has been, that's the problem. Again, the fact that you think "justice is color blind" is a pretty common delusion that has a very commonly used term attached to it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Zimmerman's gotta pay for the sins of the past? He's a walking melting pot of racial diversity with blood from at least 3 continents including Africa. But I guess he aint black enough, maybe if he was black and white like Obama. I dont know, that might not be enough either. How black does one have to be before they're not guilty of racial prejudice for profiling?

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...

If young black men are robbing a black neighborhood, how do the other residents view unfamiliar young black men who behave suspiciously?

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.

 

[metalhead]

So, quick question - why is Trayvon Martin being called a violent criminal, while George Zimmerman has a long history of violent crime, including domestic violence? No racial prejudice here, right? Black people should just all be quiet and go back to their war zones perhaps?

 

[Berzerker]

They weren't "told" Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. They heard the facts of the case and came to their own conclusion that Zimmerman wrongfully killed Trayvon and got away with it because of Trayvon's race. You refuse to accept this because you inherently undervalue their intelligence vis-a-vis your own. Your comment is basically implying that the people supporting Trayvon are too stupid to make up their own minds... which is not really surprising, given your position.

Well you're wrong about that too... They were told Zimmerman murdered Martin. Everyone was told, I was told Zimmerman murder Martin. How do you think people found out if the media wasn't telling us? I know what the media did, they had me believing Zimmerman murdered Martin. And then I started seeing facts that didn't support the narrative. The hoodie crowd was motivated by early media reports just like me and just like everyone else, not the later disclosure of facts that cast doubt on Zimmerman's guilt.

And your repeated characterization of Trayvon as a violent criminal is way off base... but also makes sense given your position, and just further illustrates the point I keep making. His race alone makes him a "criminal" in the minds of many, which is why he is dead. Your repeated erroneous characterizations just further illustrate this. If anyone was a violent criminal its Zimmerman.

Attacking neighborhood watch volunteers is a violent crime, I use the term to remind you of that.

But again, Trayvon wasn't "behaving strangely"... he was just black, and when you are black, racially prejudiced people always think you're "suspicious" no matter what you are doing, unless they already know you. BTW I noticed you've moved the goalpost again from "suspicious" to "behaving strangely", and I suspect that wasn't accidental.

How is that moving the goal post? It wasn't accidental, I tire of using the same word over and over so I try to use synonyms. In my book behaving strangely is suspicious behavior. Now you want to argue about that? Martin was behaving strangely, Zimmerman was describing him to the police while it was happening.

No, you wouldn't, and there's a pretty well known term for why you're completely oblivious to that reality.

Reality check - when strange white men are committing crimes in a neighborhood, strange white men become suspect. If we have an amber alert because a white man abducted a child, white men with children become suspects. But you dont think so? Everybody ignores white men with children during an amber alert?

 

[Berzerker]

So, quick question - why is Trayvon Martin being called a violent criminal, while George Zimmerman has a long history of violent crime, including domestic violence? No racial prejudice here, right? Black people should just all be quiet and go back to their war zones perhaps?

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.

I'm glad you asked this question because it relates directly to the topic of the thread and perfectly illustrates one of the points of the thread. So to answer your question... When black communities are the victims of white men, the suspects do not become "white men" in general, or "white men who are strangers" or "white men behaving suspiciously", because that would be preposterous and unfair, just as it is preposterous and unfair when it happens to us.

Strange white men are murdering blacks and the black community just ignores strange white men? How does the black community catch the murderers if they ignore the suspects' profile and everyone who fits it?

When black communities are the victims of white men, the suspects become the person who actually committed the harm against the community, and people who are specifically connected to that actual person because they are in the same organization with the same practices and goals as the person who harmed the community and thus have an inherent tendency to engage in the same kind of conduct that the specific wrongdoer did.

Well, if you know the identities of the murderers you dont need to be wary of other strange white men... But you damn well know people in the community will be wary of strange white men in the future. Strange white men had just invaded the community and murdered family and friends. In my example the community doesn't know the identities of the murderers, just that they're strange white men.

So when George Zimmerman stalks and kills Trayvon

Yeah, stalking doesn't mean what you think it means either...

but when Emmanuel Burgess is suspected (and arrested) for a burglary in your neighborhood, suddenly "all black males who I subjectively don't know and who I subjectively deem suspicious" which essentially boils down to "any black stranger" is a suspect. And that's the norm. Its not just you, many people treat black people this way. But its still unfair and wrong. No, justice is not color blind, never has been, that's the problem. Again, the fact that you think "justice is color blind" is a pretty common delusion that has a very commonly used term attached to it.

Several young black men were involved. My sense of justice is color blind, if yours is not, that aint my problem.