Racisms talk

[Ginzburgh]

oooh, what's your position? i just started copywriting. ^_^ you strike me as account services. (hopefully that is not an insult.)

Good guess! I am an account person. Not an insult. Very collaborative agency though, so i get to be creative too.

[leah]

oooh, what's your position? i just started copywriting. ^_^ you strike me as account services. (hopefully that is not an insult.)

Good guess! I am an account person. Not an insult. Very collaborative agency though, so i get to be creative too.

cool. we're kind of like that, too—none of the weird spy vs. spy/account vs. creatives type nonsense that a lot of other agencies have. it's a pretty great company... light years ahead of the publishing company i was at for six years. holy cow that place was soul-sucking, even though it was my dream job. alas!

[Drem]

i used to think so too, for the record

oooo next time you get mad at drem make sure you post giant photos of evergreen trees

Hahahahah. What the fuck happened in here? Harrison is losing it

You have to deal with him like a little kid. He's starved for attention, everyone hates him on every message board he's a part of. always blames it on everyone else. zso don't respond to each one of his posts. He's so delusional that he's now publicly proclaiming (in the middle of an argument, which makes it look much worse) that he's actually a genius and that he's basically figured the whole world out. Hahahahahahah. And leah's callin him out hard. This is the best shit to wake up to

Yo Ginzburgh!

[Drem]

I know i said harrison was the new mindia, but he's gettin in deep now

[10sun]

This thread makes me sad for the United States and it also makes me laugh at some of the drivel.

Who here has a college degree?
High school diploma?
and is named Harrison?
Get a GED yet?
and you guys wonder why his arguments aren't coherent and he resorts to raging?

[Tikker]

.

[Jay]

Leave family out of this folks. Spazz, you know I have love for you bro but that was uncalled for. Personally I think Harrison is semi intelligent, over opinionated trash, but saying what you said is fucked.

[leah]

Leave family out of this folks. Spazz, you know I have love for you bro but that was uncalled for. Personally I think Harrison is semi intelligent, over opinionated trash, but saying what you said is fucked.

forgot to say this yesterday, but yeah, what he said. that was pretty bad spazzy. too far.

[Lyion]

Let me try to refocus this thread, even though I hate this subject:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tions.html

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.
But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading. It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you do to that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

[leah]

what a tragic shitshow the whole thing has been.

[Menelvir]

That article (that Lyion linked) sums up a great number of my conclusions very eloquently.

I agree that 'escalated' is a very appropriate word to describe the events during the confrontation as well as post-trial.

Also, assumption, misperception, and overreaction I think are key.

If both parties in a confrontation are guilty of all three, a bad outcome is a foregone conclusion. If one person can keep their head, tragedy can be averted. Obviously neither one did in this case.

It also isn't lost on me that SYG was not invoked at all in the case, because I happen to agree that it really didn't involve SYG at all, which is at best a subset of existing self-defense laws on the books in all fifty states (which state that force can be met with force, including deadly force in cases where 'victim reasonably believes [...] etc., etc.).

SYG isn't really a license to start confrontations and kill people for it. If you'd like to read more about why SYG came about (as a provision in self-defense law) there is a lengthy but informative read about it here - it first surfaced in Beard vs. United States [1921], so the concept is not a young one.

[Lyion]

There are already self defense laws on the books in every state. SYG is a license to use a weapon where one really should not be granted, in my opinion.

The crux of the root cause here is the same as with Jovan Belcher: easy access to a gun. Imagine how simple this case would've been if Zimmerman had pulled out a taser instead of a firearm?

[Tuggan]

i want more corn pictures.

[Spazz]

Leave family out of this folks. Spazz, you know I have love for you bro but that was uncalled for. Personally I think Harrison is semi intelligent, over opinionated trash, but saying what you said is fucked.

All I have to say is he started it.

[Menelvir]

There are already self defense laws on the books in every state. SYG is a license to use a weapon where one really should not be granted, in my opinion.

I mainly wanted to raise the notion that SYG is not necessarily deserving of the indictment it's getting in the court of public opinion.

As I read the laws, SYG is really applicable only in a very narrow sense in some self-defense situations, and doesn't really apply to the TM/GZ case at all.

Stand-your-ground makes no specific mention of the method of force (or deadly force) used -- if your problem is specifically with civilians carrying firearms, then you should address right-to-carry laws, not SYG.

Ultimately, it may be found that SYG is an unnecessary proviso to existing self-defense laws, but if that is to be the case, I would rather it occur as a result of reasoned arguments by those experienced with case law and precedent, not because of public pressure about a perceived injustice in one particular case that doesn't involve it at all.

[leah]

[Zanchief]

Ultimately, it may be found that SYG is an unnecessary proviso to existing self-defense laws, but if that is to be the case, I would rather it occur as a result of reasoned arguments by those experienced with case law and precedent, not because of public pressure about a perceived injustice in one particular case that doesn't involve it at all.

The officer on scene did not even arrest Zimmerman because of SYG. How is it no relevant to this case? I understand what your saying, that the law itself has a very narrow scope, and one you feel wasn't applicable in this case, but the original officers on the scene felt otherwise, to the point that even though one man was killed by another they saw no need to even burden the courts with a trial. That's pretty scary stuff.

[Menelvir]

Zimmerman was detained (handcuffed), his weapon confiscated, and he was taken for questioning - whether that technically counts as 'arrest' I don't necessarily see as relevant.

The officers investigated the scene, questioned Zimmerman, and concluded on the basis of the evidence they found (or didn't find) that Z acted in self-defense - I don't see where SYG comes into the picture. At the point when Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman was on his back on the ground -- even if SYG did not exist and there was still a 'duty to retreat' -- retreating was no longer an option for Zimmerman at that point. At that point, Zimmerman was responding to force with force -- it's covered by basic self-defense laws and has nothing to do with SYG.

Zimmerman's mistakes were committed earlier in the entire scenario (continuing to follow, getting out of his vehicle, etc.).

[Zanchief]

To the first point where you say the original officers who conducted the investigation did not claim this was part of SYG law, true enough. The original article I read months ago mentioned it, but as you said, it's part of the vast web of misinformation going around.

Zimmerman's mistakes were committed earlier in the entire scenario (continuing to follow, getting out of his vehicle, etc.).

I think you're etc past the most damning part, his beginning the conflict himself, thus putting himself in a situation where he had no choice but to defend himself.

[brinstar]

Leave family out of this folks. Spazz, you know I have love for you bro but that was uncalled for. Personally I think Harrison is semi intelligent, over opinionated trash, but saying what you said is fucked.

forgot to say this yesterday, but yeah, what he said. that was pretty bad spazzy. too far.

yeah even i left his brother out of it, damn son

[brinstar]

anyway, i think it's bogus to throw out SYG as a culprit in this case

GZ probably knew about that law, the officers on the scene surely knew about that law

and i know "what if" statements are a dime a dozen, but what if there were no SYG law in that shite state? would GZ have even got out of his truck? would the officers on the scene have considered evidence differently? just because it wasn't invoked in the trial doesn't mean it had no factor in the circumstances

[Drem]

The whole crux of him walking free is SYG. People aren't talking about it for no reason, and i see none of you intellectuals have anything to say about the thread i posted, which is a case far less intricate than zimmerman's, yet the lady goes away for 20 years on attempted murder

Florida has no idea what it's doing anymore

[brinstar]

well obviously the lady going to prison for 20 years for firing warning shots is a travesty of justice

[Menelvir]

SYG wasn't invoked in the trial because it had no legal bearing on the outcome of the trial. If Zimmerman was a wannabe legal expert and was relying on SYG to save him from punishment, he would have been up shit creek. Incidentally, if that were the case, it would suggest premeditation -- but if you're looking to shoot someone you perceive as a criminal, waiting until that person hits you, gets you pinned on the ground and is pummeling you before you decide to pull out your gun (assuming that is what happened) is a huge (and very unnecessary) risk.

But I do suggest reading the laws regarding self-defense.

If the laws are wrong, then they should be changed -- but changing the laws needs to be done in a reasonable, consistent manner so that we get the best laws based on the conditions in which we live.

If consensus determines that self-defense laws are the cause of numerous unjustifiable homicides, then repeal them such that the only legally defensible response to being assaulted is to retreat. If you cannot retreat, and suffer grievous bodily injury or are killed as a result, then I guess folks will simply shake their heads and say "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time".

But don't, as a consolatory gesture, repeal or neuter self-defense laws based on a single case with an injustice that became highly charged after accusations of racism began flying.

Does that make sense?

As far as the woman in Florida is concerned, I don't know the details of the case, but twenty years sounds exceedingly harsh for firing a shot that didn't even hit another person. If she wasn't being attacked when she fired, my feeling is that maybe she should get a reckless endangerment charge, but IANAL.

[Zanchief]

If self-defense laws protect anyone, including those who instigate conflicts, then there's no real limit to who uses it. Someone walks into a bank with a gun, a victim pulls a gun on the criminal and gets shot by the person out of self-defense. The criminal feared for his life, and took fatal measures to preserve it. Doesn't the law have to look at the circumstance of the crime? He endangered himself by engaging someone in a fight, and decided to use deadly force to resolve the conflict. That doesn't seem to be text book self-defense to me, and if it's the case, murder is pretty much legal given a very broad use of it.

This is either a case where the law does need to be changed or the law as written was not followed. I believe it's the second, and the circumstances or why is debatable.