or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 338

post #5056 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

The average Black where I am from has a higher income than Blacks in Houston and most of the suburban and urban kids both dress in hip hop style clothes differing degrees of course. Hip hop clothing maybe is more mainstream looking than it was previously tho. Tattoos on your face and nuttiness like that of course is some hood stuff.
I said a few times I have no problems with profiling, not even racist profiling. Its always better to be comfortable and safe than not racist or whatever. Most case never end up in any interaction, so its no a big deal IMO. Many Blacks think certain kinds of whites are racist by appearance, mainly white conservative appearing males. Even professional Blacks who have a lot of experience with them, and shouldn't assume such.
Agreed on no one is %100 not racist. I can be very racist on occasion. Not hateful or anything tho.

Glad we agree.

The hip hop clothing thing is a non-fruitful diversion.

I think I can say that you, I and Pio would rightfully profile someone with a gang tattoo, who is acting suspiciously ( which should be defined, so let's say is acting like they are on drugs and being loud and boisterous bordering on being threatening ). Obviously this can be a black, white or brown person. I don't want to be around such an individual and I wouldn't want kids I know around them either.

Of course I can't speak for you or Pio but I would profile people like the above example.
post #5057 of 6250

Let me settle this argumet for you.

 

It doesn't matter the reason why Zimmerman followed TM. All that matters is Zimmerman got his head cracked open. That is enough reason to fight back with everything you've got. Forget the fact that TM trained in MMA, forget that TM liked taking drugs that cause agression, forget that TM was disciplined at school, it is not needed for GZ to defend himself.

 

The fact is following, taunting, arguing, whatever it may be is not putting your hands on someone.

 

I assume in law there is a mandate to not use more force than needed to defend your life. If I was on my back, bleeding, skull cracked, I would be wondering how many more blows I could take before the lights go out. Is that an unreasonable deduction? Why didn't TM stop beating GZ after Zimmerman started bleeding and crying for help? It makes sense GZ was screaming for help with TM on top landing blow after blow. It does not make sense that TM would cry for help because there is no evidence that GZ was beating TM. Consider statements TM made in the past about wanting to make people bleed by beating. If GZ did attack TM, knowing what we know about GZ, is it likely he would continue beating someone after that person was screaming for help? Consider the worst case for Zimmerman, he attacked TM without success, TM defended himself and that lead into beating GZ. Did TM have a responsibility to stop beating GZ at some point? Remember GZ knew the police were comming, but he did not know if it would take 1 minute for the police to arrive or 10 minutes. TM did not know the police were comming. I highly doubt GZ would beat TM with the police on the way.

 

Now that we've settled this argument, how about you guys do something productive and reply to this thread:

 

http://www.styleforum.net/t/355593/to-boot-new-york-lincoln-boot-pics-inside

post #5058 of 6250
The racial profiling thing is also unsupported by evidence. Not that there wasn't a good reason for Zimmerman to be on the lookout for young black males. But if you listen to the 911 tape, he initially sounds unsure of Martin's race--the dispatcher asks, and Zimmerman replies:

"He looks black."

Then later, as Martin approaches his car, Zimmerman says as if confirming a prior uncertainty:

"And he's a black male."
post #5059 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

Indeed just as racism to an extent is mainstream and normal

There it is.
post #5060 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

There it is.

Yep.
post #5061 of 6250
If he's saying what I think he's saying, then he's right. Maybe it's just where I'm from, but it doesn't seem that hard to find racism, and most people do at least have racist thoughts even if they don't subscribe to a doctrine of racial supremacy. And like I've said before, every trial attorney chooses his jury based at least partially on race. Anyone who doesn't is negligent, especially if they give some bullshit excuse about not seeing race. Just because the Supreme Court decided that we have to lie about it doesn't mean we don't all do it.
post #5062 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Crane.you did sound like a reasonable person before I read your last two or three posts.

You're making wild asumptions about the facts and try to paint Zimmerman as an innocent victim...

Zimmerman did profile T and was asked by the police not to engage him...

He decided to engage him and therefore bears some responsability in the outcome of the incident.


There is no evidence of T jumping him and if someone was trying to stop me in the street without any reason and restrain my movements,I will certainly finish punching him to protect myself.

As a profesional marksman and trainer,you do know the responsability coming with bearing arms especially in the contest of irregulated vigilantism..

We can twist the arguments in favour of T or Z but he is not by any means the victim in that case.

I was disgusted by OJ getting away with murder as so many people like to point out as a counterpoint to the Z case and I do think Z got away with murder.

What is sickening are the vultures trying to score political point over what i see as a tragedy.

Your argument with me is based on hyperbolic extracts of what I said and the court case in general. Please discount what I have said by using the actual evidence presented in court by using the readily available transcripts of the case. Furthermore this case is not an example of vigilantism at all. If you want to get technical though things like government interference in the case, the behaviour of both Holden and Obama along with the "will of the people" are all examples of vigilantism at work.

Your attitude about being stopped in the street and how you would start punching is a perfect example of not fully understanding the consequences of your actions. You say you would do so under the pretense of protecting yourself. Protecting yourself from what exactly? Being asked a question or two? Now if an unidentified stranger were to grab you and restrain you then you might have a leg to stand in. Of course that is highly dependent on the actual circumstances surrounding the situation.

I'm not making any wild assumptions at all about this and never have. On other threads and other arguments I would agree with you but not this time.
post #5063 of 6250
Anyway, back to the issue of what laws should be changed, here's a good article about provocation as it relates to sefl-defense

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/provocation-and-self-defense/

mainly because of this section:
Quote:
D, who is black, knows that there’s a race riot outside the house at which he is staying, and the mob had been baying for his blood before he ran into the house. But D goes (legally armed) onto the street, rather than staying in the house or escaping through a back alley. See Laney v. United States, 294 F. 412 (D.C. Cir. 1923). V, one of the white rioters, attacks D in a way that threatens D’s life, and D shoots V.....the court held that Laney wasn’t entitled to a self-defense instruction because he knew that it was “almost inevitabl[e]” that a deadly confrontation would arise, and “had every reason to believe that his presence [on the street] would provoke trouble."

Does that change Nameback or anyone else's mind about the law of provocation? Especially since you are still stuck with the same racist juries. Probably not as racist as the ones in 1923, but nevertheless they will likely end up imprisoning a lot more Trayvons than Zimmermans.
post #5064 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

Indeed just as racism to an extent is mainstream and normal. I agree I am an awful poster but not a internet tough guy like yourself. I'd say that's a win on my part.

rolleyes.gif

I'm an ITG now too?
post #5065 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Anyway, back to the issue of what laws should be changed, here's a good article about provocation as it relates to sefl-defense

 

No laws need to be changed. Stand your ground should be the law of every state.

 

TM took the fight to the next level by cracking GZ head open. If TM would not have climbed on top to continue the atack then TM would be alive today. TM may have had a right to punch GZ, and even if TM did not have that right, he would still be alive if he would have walked away after GZ went down. TM could not control his rage and tried to kill GZ.

 

This is an instructional video on how to apply stand your ground laws. Notice there is no excessive force.

 

post #5066 of 6250
Epic Beard Man.
post #5067 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post



What is sickening are the vultures trying to score political point over what i see as a tragedy.

This!

It seems to be something anybody interested in the case would agree on. I do.

Question for lasbar ( or anyone really ).

I see Al S and Jesse J as Vulture's # 1 and 2. I do not see President Obama this way.

And who on the right do you see as the main vultures? I can't think of a specific person though I'm sure there are some that are considered that way.
post #5068 of 6250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

Sounds pretty much like the definition of racism. Blacks have to look how you desire for them to be acceptable.
I don't personally think racism is a great big deal. The vast majority of the time it doesn't effect anyone, so I don't see why people deny it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

People need to present themselves in socially acceptable ways no matter what colour they are. If I saw a large white guy with a shaved head, swastika tats, in leather and denim am I being racist to keep an eye on him? I personally think it is lame not to acknowledge that how we present ourselves is designed to send messages about ourselves to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

Way to extreme of a comparison to make any sense to me. Most young black men dress in hip hop clothing. A small minority of nuts dress as neo nazis.
As I said people can use whatever cues they like, race, smell, height I'm not being insincere when I say I don't think its a sin. Better to be racist or whatever than be uncomfortable or dead, is my opinion. But saying a race of men (he said black men) need to dress as you desire them to, is racist IMO.

I'm not saying that anybody has to dress any way. I am saying that I, and a hell of a lot of other people, am more comfortable when people are dressed in a "mainstream" way. it is a way of communicating values and position. when I see kids with their pants falling down their asses, white or black, I make assumptions about them - based on how they are communicating to society. when I see a guy in a "fuck you" tee shirt, white or black, I am making assumptions about him. when I see a guy who is dressed in the way that he would dress to go to a job in a bank or an office, I am going to feel more comfortable about that person.
post #5069 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

rolleyes.gif

I'm an ITG now too?
Always been
post #5070 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post

Always been

rolleyes.gif

Because, you know, an ITG spends post after post saying if you're armed you should run like a little girl from any confrontation let alone get out of your vehicle and confront someone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon