This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Tell me MyTie, why shouldn't he be charged for ending the life of another human being?Because self defense is a plausible defense.People aren't perfect.And? I agree that we need to change our outlooks as a race on everything...but we never will; for most of the planet, it's a lot easier to just keep acting the way we always have.No no. I'm not giving this as an excuse, just as a reason.
What I do find troubling is that this thread clearly has its own bias and agenda. It includes some questionable things as "facts" while ignoring other things and then MyTie says:
Your problem is you are watching biased news and taking that for your facts.
Is this attempting to redress the balance by presenting a
different
biased view as fact?
The problem I see is a lot of people on both sides of the political divide talking about an on-going investigation before the facts are actually decided by the courts.
I guess I'm agreeing with this quote that I found on wikipedia:
Commentator Thomas Sowell wrote, "The man who shot the black teenager in Florida may be as guilty as sin, for all I know — or he may be innocent, for all I know. We pay taxes so that there can be judges and jurors who sort out the facts. We do not need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the President of the United States spouting off before the trial has even begun. Have we forgotten the media's rush to judgment in the Duke University "rape" case that blew up completely when the facts came out?"
and I see this thread as part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.
This thread is NOT designed to speculate about the guilt or the innocence of Zimmerman, nor the racial motivations of Zimmerman. This thread is designed to talk about racism. Specifically, at this point, the racism of people like Sharpton, Jackson, Black Panthers, and Obama, at jumping on the race card bandwagon before the facts came to light. This isn't a place to play judge and jury, but simply displaying all the evidence that came out AFTER these people opened their mouths. This is a place to point out the flaws of this race card self victimization, not to indulge in it. I think, for that count, you misunderstood the intent of this thread.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I agree that while racism is a problem, there are a number of people who pull the race card when it's not appropriate. In this case, it may be or it may not. In other cases, I have seen assumptions made that have either completely escalated a situation, completely distracted from what otherwise would have been a valid argument or have created animosity that didn't need to be there.
Examples I can think of-
At the college newspaper, we used to do write-ups of the official college events- when there was a debate, or a student congress or student organization sponsored party, or a poetry night, or anything like that, we'd use it to fill space. One party that the Black Student Alliance threw apparently sucked- I wasn't there for the same reason that they had such low attendance to begin with- they had scheduled it in conflict with a different event that was more popular. Well, we did have a reporter there, who I believe was Asian, and they wrote the truth- that there was low attendance, and that it might have been a bad idea to schedule opposite whatever the other event was (I forget now what it was).
Well, the BSA left a message that they wanted to meet with the editor about this article, and insinuated that the poor review was because it was a BSA party and was somewhat racially motivated. My editor came back from the meeting laughing. Because she was black, and her first words were something like "They were definitely not expecting ME to come through the door. They wanted to say we were being racist, and it's hard for them to tell me I hate black people." I asked what she said, and said "I told them the truth- their party sucked."
My ex also got chewed out once at work when the power went out, and he called it a blackout. Apparently that's racist.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
story:
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2012/03/26/students-deface-posters-they-call-racist-against-asians
I think people feign racial tolerance and demand sensitivity to an extreme just to portray themselves as cultural and deep, even if it is only in their own minds. I think it is narcissistic.
Post by
asakawa
I disagree. I think that political correctness, even when it goes a bit over the top, is part of the process of overcoming prejudices in society.
ignorance > political correctness > loss of prejudice
I think this process occurs with each issue as it arises and, while it's worth keeping a sense of proportion, I think it's a process that should be embraced and understood in terms of being a means to an end.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I disagree. I think that political correctness, even when it goes a bit over the top, is part of the process of overcoming prejudices in society.
ignorance > political correctness > loss of prejudice
I think this process occurs with each issue as it arises and, while it's worth keeping a sense of proportion, I think it's a process that should be embraced and understood in terms of being a means to an end.
This is entirely too politically incorrect. You obviously haven't accounted for societies that may or may not have prejudices. Your attitude shows that you aren't being sensitive. You should apologize. Is that ridiculous? Perhaps, but that is part of the
process
. Like you pointed out, sometimes you have to all act like idiotic ridiculous PC narcassitic jerks to achieve common sense. It is like when you light yourself on fire because you are cold, or beat up your waitress because she put too much mustard on your hamburger. This is the
process
. It doesn't need to make sense. It doesn't even need an argument backing it up. So, I demand an apology. It is the only way we as a society can move forward, is to move in the incorrect direction.
(For those of you who like to take my sarcasm literally to be jerks, and then feign ignorance to the fact that it was sarcasm... ADAMSM... I'm informing you now that the above paragraph is sarcasm.)
Post by
Adamsm
The snark fails in that comment MyTie.
Post by
asakawa
/rolleyes - 'cause, beating up a waitress is obviously the natural conclusion of what I'm saying right?
As I said, it's worth keeping a sense of proportion. However, you're saying:
I think people feign racial tolerance and demand sensitivity to an extreme just to portray themselves as cultural and deep
I do not agree that's the motive behind what I concede may in some cases be an overly sensitive approach.
I actually think it's a generational thing (as well as being heavily location based - US and UK are different).
There were some 60s and 70s sitcoms over here that were outright racist (not just culturally or racially insensitive, I mean they were awful) and adults of that generation still today will unabashedly say things that make me wince.
I think we're the awkward generation that you often see in sitcoms today where people say something totally innocuous and then ask "is that racist?" We're the generation that asks that question of everything and perhaps doesn't always come up with the right answer.
The next generation, I hope, won't even have to worry about saying something insensitive because everyone will understand that there was no intention to discriminate based on race. It will be an alien concept and not one that people need to constantly question. Though of course, there will be a new issue for that generation to get to grips with.
Post by
MyTie
I concede
VICTORY IS MINE!
Post by
asakawa
hehe
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Runaway Lawyer
Thought I'd link this here, instead of the news thread, since we're talking about the case more here.
Post by
MyTie
Runaway Lawyer
Thought I'd link this here, instead of the news thread, since we're talking about the case more here.
Zimmerman needs a better lawyer. This guy seems more like a publicist than a lawyer, and is doing a poor job of that.
Have you seen the CCTV video footage in the police deparment the night of the shooting. People are claiming that they don't see any injuries on the CCTV tape. Playing doctor through a video camera takes real talent.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I did see the video- I didn't see any blood, but you're right it could be hard to tell. I'm more interested in the statement by the coroner that Martin had no bruising or cuts on his hands that would indicate that he had hit or fought with anyone, and the transcripts of the 911 calls where Zimmerman said the kid was running out of the neighborhood, and he was chasing him because "they always get away". Those are much more official sources.
Post by
MyTie
I did see the video- I didn't see any blood, but you're right it could be hard to tell. I'm more interested in the statement by the coroner that Martin had no bruising or cuts on his hands that would indicate that he had hit or fought with anyone, and the transcripts of the 911 calls where Zimmerman said the kid was running out of the neighborhood, and he was chasing him because "they always get away". Those are much more official sources.
Yes, very damaging. There seems to be plenty of information for investigators to use now. Where the shooting took place, where the witnesses were, where Zimmerman's car was parked, where the body was found, what position it was found in, the trajectory of the bullet, etc etc.
In the end, this is either murder or is not. One way or another, the government will charge or not, and if so, a jury will decide. What there is not evidence of, but is the real issue, is the racism. Murder occurs every day in the US. Today, multiple people will be murdered in the US. Same tommorrow, and the next day. It is just a part of daily life here, and all over the world. It goes, for the most part, unnoticed by the general population. What has everyone eyeing this case, is the percieved racism of Zimmerman, based on nothing but the skin tone of Zimmerman, the skin tone of Martin, and the fact that Zimmerman identified Martin as black on the phone with the police. It actually makes perfect sense to identify the skin tone of a suspect to police. That is standard procedure, and it would be counter intuitive not to. When I worked for 911 dispatch, if skin tone of the suspect was not provided by the witness, I asked for it. How could anyone think that information wouldn't be useful? But racism? I don't see evidence of it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that the real issue in this case is that law, and I'm worried that the focus on whether or not it was racially motivated will distract from the issue of that badly worded and broadly defined law. Either it was or it wasn't racially motivated- in either case, a kid is dead and this guy will probably end up getting charged based on a lot of the evidence that's coming out. Either way, he's not going to be hurting anyone again. I don't think that even if he isn't found guilty, that set of circumstances will repeat itself again, or that he'll do anything but run the other direction after all of the death threats, the publicity and the bounty on his head.
But if that law isn't revisited, a LOT more people are going to be killed because people feel that they can get away with it. My example with the repo man shot dead by a guy who hadn't paid on his car in a year is much more clear cut, but unfortunately didn't get enough attention to move people to challenge this law.
Post by
MyTie
That law isn't being used by him or his lawyer. That was just media speculation. Someone somewhere was like, "He may be able to use the Stand Your Ground law", and then the media ran with it, and now the public perception is that he will be using it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The reason it's coming into play, is that in any other state, as soon as it was established that he was following the kid, he would have been considered guilty of initiating the fight because he has a legal duty to flee if at all possible before responding with force. If he pursued someone he thought could be dangerous, then he can't then claim self defense, even if he felt that he was in danger, because he has the legal duty to avoid the confrontation. In Florida, he doesn't have that responsibility. It's not because he is claiming it- it's because any claim of self defense in Florida in a public place is measured by it.
Post by
MyTie
I thought at one point you could hear his car door ding on one of the tapes, and he was out of breath, because he HAD been following, but returned to his car when he was told to. His story is also that he returned to his car, and was followed, and at that point assailed.
But, I have to disagree with you fundamentally, regardless of the Zimmerman case. If I follow someone, while on public property, that does not remove my right to defend my life. This isn't to say that stalking should be legal, or that I shouldn't be charged with harassment, but it in no way makes it right to physically assault me.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.