Support NeoGAF

[Choke on the Magic]

Well, I'm just curious as to your thought processes. Obama is silent on a lot of things: I mean, aside from the win on his election night, he hasn't said much about voting problems in the country, especially in the wake of SCOTUS' ruling on the VRA. However, that doesn't mean what he said today thinks it'll help him politically.

I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks saying what he said helps him politically whether it be his agenda or anything else. Not everything a politician says is for their own benefit. Sure you could argue much of it is, but not everything.

Everything a politician says is to either benefit themselves or the party they represent imo. That's my thought process.

 

[rvy]

Why does everyone seem to forget that roughly 70% of African Americans living in the US have European in them?

Must be why I like Black America.

 

[The Librarian]

Everything a politician says is to either benefit themselves or the party they represent imo. That's my thought process.

Well, that's not true if you read up on history. The most famous example is LBJ and the Democratic Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the president remarking in private that they'd lose the South for a generation. The most recent example is passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Obama has an issue as it relates to him in Trayvon Martin, so he spoke out about it. You see a lot of politicians doing this. A good example is how female politicians speak more often about women's issues even if it doesn't benefit themselves.

 

[soundscream]

I never understood this type of thinking, it is asking me to go against logic and common sense. If there is an amber alert for a middle-aged Hispanic male in a red pickup truck suspected of kidnapping then I am going to racially profile every Hispanic male I come across as well as "color profile" every red truck I see. That type of racial profiling I have no problem with because obviously it is in response to actual events. Racial profiling that is obviously unacceptable are like NYC's stop and frisk laws or the whole "driving while Black" stops.

The first example isn't racial profiling because you have a specific description for a specific crime.

 

[casabolg]

Why keep shifting focus to the physical fight that Martin may or may not have started when we know Zimmerman spotted and followed Martin to begin with, despite not doing nothing more than walking down the street?

Because that's what the true altercation was. A following under reasonable suspicion doesn't lead to a physical fight. The actual interaction does and that interaction is the core issue and the lack of evidence (and skill of Zimmerman's lawyer) in that is what made the court case end like it was. We can argue on an on about if that suspicion was truly reasonable and if Zimmerman was caring about his behavior or his race but the core of the issue is the interaction and we just don't know. Either case, neither of them seem like good people and a person died so we need to treat the situation with care.

And even if stalking, profiling, believing black people are inherently guilty of something and following them with this assumption while armed with a gun are legal, why should we accept that? Are you okay with living in a country where this is permissible? Do you believe there's nothing wrong with the above being considered legal?

Truly "stalking" is illegal but that's something else altogether, profiling is illegal in business and law but not between civilians, assuming things while having a gun with a concealed carry permit is legal, and following someone when they have reasonable suspicion is legal. If you're trying to make bias, possibly unconscious, illegal between civilians then good luck with that. That's going to be a hell of a thing to try to prove.

You keep trying to shift discussion to the fight itself as if it exists in a vacuum, as if Zimmerman's actions leading up to it don't matter at all. That makes little sense if you're have the pretense of looking at this situation logically.

Nonsense. Lets say Zimmerman's testimony was right and Martin came back to see him and start a fight. You could say that Zimmerman's actions started that fight because Zimmerman acted like a prick to him but all he did (following him with reasonable suspicion and possibly telling him to get out) was not illegal. The only breaking of the law is the physical violence assumed to be done by Martin in that testimony and if that is true, it's something he had the will to not do but realistically we cannot put trust in the testimony so it becomes a grand gray area which sucks.

 

[Tamanon]

I never understood this type of thinking, it is asking me to go against logic and common sense. If there is an amber alert for a middle-aged Hispanic male in a red pickup truck suspected of kidnapping then I am going to racially profile every Hispanic male I come across as well as "color profile" every red truck I see. That type of racial profiling I have no problem with because obviously it is in response to actual events. Racial profiling that is obviously unacceptable are like NYC's stop and frisk laws or the whole "driving while Black" stops.

Trayvon Martin was "walking while Black".

 

[soundahfekz]

- Black people make up 50% of all inmates in prison even though we only make up 12% of the country’s population.

- Black people are incarcerated at 6 times the rate of white people.

- 5 times as many white people use drugs as black people, yet black people are sent to prison 10 times more for drug offenses.

- Black people serve the same amount of time in prison for non-violent drug offenses (4.8 years) as white people do for a violent offenses (5.1 years).

- Black people are 12% of all drug users, but they are 32% of all people arrested for drug possession.

- In 2002 black people constituted 80% of all people sent to jail for crack cocaine laws, even though 66% of people that due crack cocaine are white or “Hispanic”.

- In New Jersey 15% of all drivers are black, yet 42% of cars pulled over for a traffic violation are black. And 72% of all drivers arrested for a traffic violation are black.

- In New Jersey 77% of all traffic car searches were of minorities.

- In Maryland 17% of drivers are black, but 70% stopped and searched were black. These stats are where the term “driving while black” come from.

- But here’s the catch, whites who were pulled over were more likely to have illegal drugs in their cars. In New Jersey whites were 2 times more likely than blacks and 5 times more likely than Latinos to have illegal drugs in their cars.

- In America black people are convicted to death penalty sentences more than white people even though they committed the same crime.

- And also in America of all criminals that have been executed due to the death penalty, 84% of the victims have been white. Only 12% have been black since 1976. Even though 50% of all homicides have black victims.

- Also since 1976, 40% of all people executed were black even though we only make up 12% of the population.

- There have been studies that have shown that people with white “sounding” names get interview call backs quicker and easier than people with black “sounding” names. Examples of the names being: Keisha, Tamika, Latonya, and Ebony. And these resumes were literally the exact same, just different names.

- The names that sounded more white were 50% more likely to get a call back than the ones with black sounding names. The test was done in Boston and Chicago.

- And watch this video where they do a test of black kids and white kids vandalizing a car and what the white people do in response based on race. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQHdbW36XjE


*********************************************************************************

So explain to me again why Obama shouldn't have addressed this particular issue, considering the above stats?

People will ignore this post and continue to argue the same post-racial "if we ignore it then it doesn't exist" bullshit though

 

[Keio]

It's been a while, but again proud of Obama. Good going!

 

[ISOM]

Obama is one slick motherfucker. He's using this case so people talk something else other than his scandals.

The scandals? What scandals? The 24 hr news cycle has already talked about these "scandals". They are much bigger in your head than in the general public.

 

[Professor Beef]

Obviously a Kenyan Muslim takin all our jobs.

This right here. I could've been President, but OBUMMER swooped in with his "equal rights" and "affirmitave action" bulldickey and got a free ride to the White House.

 

[Angry Fork]

It's been a while, but again proud of Obama. Good going!

This is the positive political effect of his statements, for the people who are wondering.

It eases the conscience of those who are ambivalent about him, which allows him to speed on ahead with any other immoral/controversial policies.

 

[Kite]

The first example isn't racial profiling because you have a specific description for a specific crime.

To me, a reported string of robberies by young black males in the neighborhood counts as specific crimes. If I were in the neighborhood I'd be on the lookout myself; not at black females, not elderly blacks, not black toddlers. I'd do the exact same thing if there were a string of.. I dunno.. theft of rice cookers by an middle-aged Asian woman. Guess which group I'd racially profile next? You are asking me to go against common sense.

 

[royalan]

This is the political effect of his statements, for the people who are wondering.

It eases the conscience of those who are ambivalent about him, which allows him to speed on ahead with any other immoral/controversial policies.

...because it couldn't POSSIBLE be that this tragedy didn't weigh heavily enough of his heart to prompt him to give comforting words and unique insight (as our first black president) to a grieving public?

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I'm done. You didn't even read my whole statement where I clarified that I understand he racial profiled in part. I was under the assumption that we were talking about the specific problem that blacks have in regards to being racially profiled.

If white people were responsible for robberies nearby (haven't heard anything proving this, but even still), that would not justify assuming anyone else who's white is more likely to be robbers.

I've looked at all your posts and it seems you're trying to make a point that saying race plays a large part in this situation is absurd... but Zimmerman was calling 911 multiple times about seeing black people in the neighborhood.

Are you saying that following someone purely because they happen to share characteristics of others who recently committed crimes is okay, so long as you're not following them ultimately because of their appearance? Because that's absurd to think. You're still suspicious of them for no good reason; their appearance, something that's in many ways out of their control (skin color, build, Etc.) and in no way should be considered inherently bad — unless they have a sign on them that says "I'm a criminal."

 

[Chie Satonaka]

...because it couldn't POSSIBLE be that this tragedy didn't weigh heavily enough of his heart to prompt him to give comforting words and unique insight (as our first black president) to a grieving public?

Of course not.

By the way, what has Alex Jones said about all this? I'm not going to feel at peace until he weighs in.

 

[ViperVisor]

Eh... There was a lot of the same BS directed at Bush, even books written about it. Of course, as per any affiliation, it only happens to YOUR chosen champion and never the other guy!

Grass is greener logic unless you literally slept under a rock the 8 years that failure was President.

False Equivalency.

Logic Logic appears that the the President who is was up to his eyes in shit is different than the one with shit on his shoes.

Not reasonable to bring the 'Hitler' analogy to the table but there was more sense to that kind of nonsense with Bush vs. Obama.

 

[Learn2read]

Good for Obama.

Dear god at some of the people in this thread. Absolutely shameful.

 

[The Librarian]

This is the positive political effect of his statements, for the people who are wondering.

It eases the conscience of those who are ambivalent about him, which allows him to speed on ahead with any other immoral/controversial policies.

-_____________________________________-

 

[Meier]

He should really stay out of this.

Why? It was a bullshit decision, it's a bullshit law and it should be examined. Whether or not the prosecution did a good enough job to convict him doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman had no right to do what he did and that he should never have been in a position to murder someone.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Well, that's not true if you read up on history. The most famous example is LBJ and the Democratic Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the president remarking in private that they'd lose the South for a generation. The most recent example is passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Obama has an issue as it relates to him in Trayvon Martin, so he spoke out about it. You see a lot of politicians doing this. A good example is how female politicians speak more often about women's issues even if it doesn't benefit themselves.

LBJ is a pretty ironic example too. Kennedy only picked him to win southern democrats. I'll concede that, but ACA? It's been a democratic party goal for a while. I don't think that applies. I'm more interested at this point in his actions after this speech. If I'm wrong I'll gladly eat crow.

 

[Angry Fork]

...because it couldn't POSSIBLE be that this tragedy didn't weigh heavily enough of his heart to prompt him to give comforting words and unique insight (as our first black president) to a grieving public?

That certainly could be possible, but it seems odd when compared to the amount of tragedies blacks and minorities face as part of the drug war. Surely a moral person would interrupt Jay Carney, or get on a state of the union to talk about that?

You don't even have to leave American shores and talk about drones, although you could. There are a number of tragedies fully endorsed by this government domestically on millions of people that are not getting any air time from the president.

But one (very true and reasonable) statement about women clutching purses, discrimination everywhere etc. wipes all of that away. Now Obama is a nice guy again. At least until he says Ray Kelly is great at his job (his job being to discriminate against blacks and hispanics).

 

[commedieu]

You just love making blanket statements about "non-blacks", don't you?



This bullshit does nothing to further the discourse that is NEEDED right now - it only serves to further muddy up the discussion by speaking as these are absolute facts.

Sorry, you're not helping the "racist" argument by making, DARE I SAY IT, racist fucking statements, genius. How is it right for ANYONE to make blanket absolute statements about another race? How is it justified to say all "non-blacks" lack the cognitive skills to find the President's words significant? What do you have against Hispanics, Asians, Whites, Indians, Native Americans, Middle Easterners, etc? What do you have against "non-blacks" that you think it's perfectly fine to profile them? Isn't that how this whole situation started? How fucking idiotic.

There are plenty of "non-black" folks who are on YOUR SIDE, which, you will never see or believe since you seem to have a predisposition against "non-blacks".

How shameful.

Edit:

But it's OK for you to do it, right?

Jack, my mistake was not saying generally. Which is what I should have said. But you're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on that. I don't see how you're extrapolating my personal issues with other races, in relation to being outside of the black community, and being of the logic that Obama shouldn't say anything about this. These are the people i've been referring to time and time again in this thread, and generally, that logic comes outside of the black community. Other posters have noted this attitude in the thread, and have gone on to say. "Great, another thread where people tell black people what's racist." This isn't a witch hunt, or some excuse for a race riot. There is a significant focus on the black community for this one issue, because Trayvons story resonates with blacks history of being profiled and lynched in the USA.

Also, I was referring to the population, of blacks, that think its open season on them, and thats why the president needs to discuss this. I also cited the people who "don't see color." as being problematic here.

I think you were hoping for a gotcha moment, or something with me. But no, I should have said generally. But thats about all thats valid about your post. And I feel if that happened, you wouldn't have gone to the level of insinuating that I have problems with specific races. Or any of the personal stuff.

 

[royalan]

To me, a reported string of robberies by young black males in the neighborhood counts as specific crimes. If I were in the neighborhood I'd be on the lookout myself; not at black females, not elderly blacks, not black toddlers. I'd do the exact same thing if there were a string of.. I dunno.. theft of rice cookers by an middle-aged Asian woman. Guess which group I'd racially profile next? You are asking me to go against common sense.

And if you did that, I think it'd be safe to label you paranoid and a borderline lunatic, similar to Zimmerman.

Look, shit happens. Crime happens. Hearing that a crime was committed by a person of a specific ethnicity shouldn't give you the right to profile and suspect any person of that ethnicity to the point of action like Zimmerman did, and this situation is a perfect example. We know for an absolute fact that Trayvon was up to nothing criminal. He'd gone to the store and was on his way home. But because Zimmerman didn't "go against his common sense" as you put it, he instigated a series of events that ended with a boy who was doing absolutely NOTHING wrong paying with his life for the actions of some people completely unrelated to him.

 

[The Technomancer]

That certainly could be possible, but it seems odd when compared to the amount of tragedies blacks and minorities face as part of the drug war. Surely a moral person would interrupt Jay Carney, or get on a state of the union to talk about that?

Perhaps he chose this one because its something the American public actually seems to care about? I mean, its harsh, but they kind of seem to give two shits about drones or the drug war.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

If I was black I would be absolutely appalled reading some of the shit I see in this thread.

"Appalled"? I'm feeling more of a "why should I even be surprised" on my end.

 

[The Librarian]

LBJ is a pretty ironic example too. Kennedy only picked him to win southern democrats. I'll concede that, but ACA? It's been a democratic party goal for a while. I don't think that applies. I'm more interested at this point in his actions after this speech. If I'm wrong I'll gladly eat crow.

The goal of universal healthcare has been a longstanding goal of the Democratic Party, yes, but not specifically ACA and the individual mandate. Even when the law was being passed and when it was at its most unpopular, Obama kept talking about even though it was clearly not to his benefit. He defended the individual mandate – and continues to do so – even though it was and still is unpopular. So why did he keep talking about it? The Democrats passed ACA knowing it would cost them seats in 2010, so why did they pass it? Your statement does not follow from an observation of history.

 

[Angelus Errare]

"Appalled"? I'm feeling more of a "why should I even be surprised" on my end.

This. I was shocked at 15, appalled at 20, why am I even surprised at 25.

 

[jmls1121]

Good for Obama.

Dear god at some of the people in this thread. Absolutely shameful.

Yeah, there is some outright casual racism in this thread. It is pretty disgusting.

 

[Shrennin]

If white people were responsible for robberies nearby (haven't heard anything proving this, but even still), that would not justify assuming anyone else who's white is more likely to be robbers.

That was a scenario trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled. Like I said, I wasn't clear enough but I will make one thing clear: assuming something about someone purely based on race is wrong. I was trying to think through Zimmerman's eyes in trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled any race based on recent crimes involving a group of people of that specific race. I was saying he was racially profiling those people due to recent events, not due to his predisposition toward any specific race.

I don't believe race has anything to do with criminal behavior. I want to make that extremely clear.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

The goal of universal healthcare has been a longstanding goal of the Democratic Party, yes, but not specifically ACA and the individual mandate. Even when the law was being passed and when it was at its most unpopular, Obama kept talking about even though it was clearly not to his benefit. He defended the individual mandate – and continues to do so – even though it was and still is unpopular. So why did he keep talking about it? The Democrats passed ACA knowing it would cost them seats in 2010, so why did they pass it? Your statement does not follow from an observation of history.

Is it a fact they knew it would cost them? The then speak of the house acted like she didn't know wtf was even in the bill. Just that they should pass it.

 

[soundscream]

To me, a reported string of robberies by young black males in the neighborhood counts as specific crimes. If I were in the neighborhood I'd be on the lookout myself; not at black females, not elderly blacks, not black toddlers. I'd do the exact same thing if there were a string of.. I dunno.. theft of rice cookers by an middle-aged Asian woman. Guess which group I'd racially profile next? You are asking me to go against common sense.

If there was a robbery committed that night then I could see that, but since there wasnt how long would you profile young black males in the area, a month, a year, the rest of your life?

 

[Rastafarian42]

The dismissive and generally bitter reactions of some people towards Obama's comments really highlight a closing of the mind that has been going on for decades. Race and racism are complex issues that have not gone away, and will not go away. Yet racism today is still seen through the prism or either slavery or the 1960s: beatings, lynchings, blatant segregation. Because most if not all of these major things are not happening in 2013, and because we now have a black president, some seem quite convinced race is no longer an issue. And because of that, race has been swept under a rug. Any discussion of differences among races or racism is liable to be attacked as fostering discontent or ill - as if the mere mention of racism today will suddenly revive it from its deep slumber.

As Obama mentioned, racial profiling is not some long dead practice. It happens every day, every hour in this country. And the Zimmerman case, right or wrong, is seen entirely through that lens by many black people. If a person has spent most of his life being blatantly racially profiled during trips to the corner store, or while walking late at night, it should not come as a surprise that they view Zimmerman confronting Martin as an issue of profiling. After all, Martin went to a corner store and then attempted to go home before being pursued by someone. Zimmerman called 911 and complained about "these assholes" always getting away with crimes. Is it any surprise that black people, specifically black men, identify with Martin? We have been "those assholes" for most of our lives.

The general retort to all of this is that Zimmerman had black friends, and therefore clearly was not racist. Which, again, goes back to the point about racism as a concept being simplified today. Zimmerman never lynched a black person, nor did he refuse to serve a black person at a restaurant - therefore he's clearly not racist. I don't know whether Zimmerman is racist or not. Nor do I believe every white woman who hurriedly crosses the street (in broad daylight) when I'm behind her is racist. But I believe that Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good due to who he was: a young black male. Or, a young "dark" male if you want to harp on Zimmerman telling the operator that he thought Martin was black; I think it's safe to say he knew he was not white.

As long as we continue to shrink discussions of race, and get outraged that we're even discussing racism in 2013, we will always have this problem. Racism will always be seen as a double edged sword to many white people: to them, they feel as if they're being accused of something, as if racism is their fault or their grandfather's fault, as if we cannot discuss racism without putting white people on trial. And to those people I would simply say, imagine that feeling of assumed guilt nagging at you every day, every hour, every minute, for years. Decades. Every time you go into a store late at night, or every time you're driving in a nice car, or every time you accidentally lock yourself out your house and are outside looking for the key. Perhaps then you will know how many black people feel to an extent, and why this case is so personal to us.

 

[Angry Fork]

Perhaps he chose this one because its something the American public actually seems to care about? I mean, its harsh, but they kind of seem to give two shits about drones or the drug war.

He can force them to care by making it a mainstream issue. Anything he says is highlighted and listened to by everyone. His silence keeps it underground, where he likely wants it to stay. But then I get shit from liberals saying the president of the united states can't influence anything. That deserves a real laugh out loud.

The day liberals recognize this is the day we can get real change, but they continue to make excuses for him on everything. Defend him on this statement yes as it is worthy of defense, but not on immoral policies that are much much more harmful. (Not talking to you btw just others here who selectively ignore reality to keep the 2008 cult-figure of Obama alive.)

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Because that's what the true altercation was. A following under reasonable suspicion doesn't lead to a physical fight. The actual interaction does and that interaction is the core issue and the lack of evidence (and skill of Zimmerman's lawyer) in that is what made the court case end like it was. We can argue on an on about if that suspicion was truly reasonable and if Zimmerman was caring about his behavior or his race but the core of the issue is the interaction and we just don't know. Either case, neither of them seem like good people and a person died so we need to treat the situation with care.

Reasonable suspicion is subjective and shouldn't be used by a civilian of unsubstantiated integrity/trustworthiness when armed with a deadly weapon. Is that arguable?

Saying they seem like bad people is subjective.

Truly "stalking" is illegal but that's something else altogether, profiling is illegal in business and law but not between civilians, assuming things while having a gun with a concealed carry permit is legal, and following someone when they have reasonable suspicion is legal. If you're trying to make bias, possibly unconscious, illegal between civilians then good luck with that. That's going to be a hell of a thing to try to prove.

Acting on that bias in a way that leads to someone dying (something that any logic can prove) when not acting on that bias would've prevented that should not be legal. That should be grounds for manslaughter. If the law permits that, then the law is flawed. It isn't gospel; it's man-made and capable of being broken.

Nonsense. Lets say Zimmerman's testimony was right and Martin came back to see him and start a fight. You could say that Zimmerman's actions started that fight because Zimmerman acted like a prick to him but all he did (following him with reasonable suspicion and possibly telling him to get out) was not illegal. The only breaking of the law is the physical violence assumed to be done by Martin in that testimony and if that is true, it's something he had the will to not do but realistically we cannot put trust in the testimony so it becomes a grand gray area which sucks.

But we don't know that that happened so why use that as an example? We know Zimmerman profiled and followed Martin based on his appearance. We know the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue. We know Martin was walking back home and there's no evidence that exists that suggests in any reasonable way Martin was planning on robbing/casing houses on his way back with his snacks. That's not a grey area.

Do you believe civilians should be permitted to actively chase after people while armed based on their own, possibly irrational thoughts? The fact that he could have done all of the above based on Martin's race should be reason enough to question the law permitting his actions. The fact that a teenager who was doing nothing wrong was followed, then killed and the person responsible faced no repercussions at all should be enough reason to question the law.

 

[commedieu]

That was a scenario trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled. Like I said, I wasn't clear enough but I will make one thing clear: assuming something about someone purely based on race is wrong. I was trying to think through Zimmerman's eyes in trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled any race based on recent crimes involving a group of people of that specific race. I was saying he was racially profiling those people due to recent events, not due to his predisposition toward any specific race.

I don't believe race has anything to do with criminal behavior. I want to make that extremely clear.

You don't have to be racist to profile based on race. Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon, then shot him.

Saying zimmerman racially profiled trayvon, is correct. You're just giving reasons why he racially profiled. Which still means he racially profiled. What do the reasons matter when the end result is harassment and death?

No one knows Zimmerman's heart, and if he is a racist. I don't think he is. He did want to catch a criminal.

 

[sangreal]

I never understood this type of thinking, it is asking me to go against logic and common sense. If there is an amber alert for a middle-aged Hispanic male in a red pickup truck suspected of kidnapping then I am going to racially profile every Hispanic male I come across as well as "color profile" every red truck I see. That type of racial profiling I have no problem with because obviously it is in response to actual events. Racial profiling that is obviously unacceptable are like NYC's stop and frisk laws or the whole "driving while Black" stops.

Looking for someone that matches a description is not profiling (and it is not what GZ was doing). Profiling requires building a profile. eg someone creeping around looking into windows might fit the profile of a burglar. Racial profiling is when you base that profile on race. eg a black guy walking down the sidewalk in the wrong neighborhood must be a burglar.

It's easy to see - just mess with the races in the above scenarios. A white guy creeping around looking in windows is still suspicious. Is it still suspicious for a white guy to walk down the street in that neighborhood? Or drive around armed following people, for that matter

 

[Spring-Loaded]

That was a scenario trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled. Like I said, I wasn't clear enough but I will make one thing clear: assuming something about someone purely based on race is wrong. I was trying to think through Zimmerman's eyes in trying to explain why Zimmerman may have racially profiled any race based on recent crimes involving a group of people of that specific race. I was saying he was racially profiling those people due to recent events, not due to his predisposition toward any specific race.

I don't believe race has anything to do with criminal behavior. I want to make that extremely clear.

It was based purely on race. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin other than his appearance. Zimmerman reached the conclusion that "black = more likely to be a robbber based on recent events" and then followed Martin because of Martin's race. that isn't fair to Martin or anyone who's black. Assuming such about anyone based on the actions of others of the same race is not fair as is based purely on race. Just because there's some BS logic to get to that conclusion doesn't change that.

He was racially profiling based purely on race. That is racist, even if the person doing it doesn't realize it.

 

[wildfire]

Except there was a string of robberies by criminals who happened to be young, black males. Would his calls target, for instance, whites if those criminals were young, white males? You don't know and neither do I. This is not the case to pick for a case against racial profiling.

Profiling based on genetic appearance is never justified. This discussion was dumb when we debated doing the same to Arabic looking people during 9-11 and it's ineffective now.

You evaluate potential threats by behavior and characteristics backed by deductive reasoning not genetic features.

Because that's what the true altercation was. A following under reasonable suspicion doesn't lead to a physical fight. The actual interaction does and that interaction is the core issue and the lack of evidence (and skill of Zimmerman's lawyer) in that is what made the court case end like it was. We can argue on an on about if that suspicion was truly reasonable and if Zimmerman was caring about his behavior or his race but the core of the issue is the interaction and we just don't know. Either case, neither of them seem like good people and a person died so we need to treat the situation with care.


Truly "stalking" is illegal but that's something else altogether, profiling is illegal in business and law but not between civilians, assuming things while having a gun with a concealed carry permit is legal, and following someone when they have reasonable suspicion is legal. If you're trying to make bias, possibly unconscious, illegal between civilians then good luck with that. That's going to be a hell of a thing to try to prove.


Nonsense. Lets say Zimmerman's testimony was right and Martin came back to see him and start a fight. You could say that Zimmerman's actions started that fight because Zimmerman acted like a prick to him but all he did (following him with reasonable suspicion and possibly telling him to get out) was not illegal. The only breaking of the law is the physical violence assumed to be done by Martin in that testimony and if that is true, it's something he had the will to not do but realistically we cannot put trust in the testimony so it becomes a grand gray area which sucks.

*barfs*

 

[starmud]

I wish this would put more focus on state gun laws but that message has been totally drowned by race debating and accusations. More focus should be on Florida and why what happened was possible.

The president waving in before the planned protests on Saturday seems a bit untimely.

In my community near L.A., We've already seen some some poor behavior spawn from smaller protests. It dosent help that the larger one on Saturday will be happening next to a pre planned "impeachment" rally against Obama. Everything around here is a little too hot right now and I'm sure this will add more crazy to the fire.

 

[Figboy79]

As I stated before, I'm glad Obama said something.

I look at it this way: Trayvon Martin could have been my uncle 35 years ago. My entire family has experienced racial profiling, discrimination, and mistreatment by the police and non-blacks for many, many years.

The difference between my Uncle and President Obama is that not a single fuck would be given if my Uncle opened his mouth to talk about the things he experienced. Coming from the President's lips, it holds more weight and importance, and maybe, just maybe, it will stir up decent, productive discussion over these issues.

When the average black person brings up these issues, it is largely ignored and treated as "just one incident that isn't indicative of the plight of a large majority of blacks in America. now please stop talking about it, because it makes me uncomfortable to hear that, in 2013, racisim is still alive and well in large portions of the country."

I wish he'd speak more candidly about these issues, honestly.

 

[Jack_AG]

Jack, my mistake was not saying generally. Which is what I should have said. But you're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on that. I don't see how you're extrapolating my personal issues with other races, in relation to being outside of the black community, and being of the logic that Obama shouldn't say anything about this. These are the people i've been referring to time and time again in this thread, and generally, that logic comes outside of the black community. Other posters have noted this attitude in the thread, and have gone on to say. "Great, another thread where people tell black people what's racist." This isn't a witch hunt, or some excuse for a race riot. There is a significant focus on the black community for this one issue, because Trayvons story resonates with blacks history of being profiled and lynched in the USA.

Also, I was referring to the population, of blacks, that think its open season on them, and thats why the president needs to discuss this. I also cited the people who "don't see color." as being problematic here.

I think you were hoping for a gotcha moment, or something with me. But no, I should have said generally. But thats about all thats valid about your post. And I feel if that happened, you wouldn't have gone to the level of insinuating that I have problems with specific races. Or any of the personal stuff.

Then it was my mistake. Forgive me lashing out, please. I'm still miffed about the GZ verdict like we all are and this whole damn thing makes me feel like I'm losing my fucking mind sometimes or the rest of the world lost theirs, I can't tell sometimes.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

If mods were half-serious about racism around here, half this fucking board would be banned.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

I wish this would put more focus on state gun laws but that message has been totally drowned by race debating and accusations. More focus should be on Florida and why what happened was possible.

The president waving in before the planned protests on Saturday seems a bit untimely.

In my community near L.A., We've already seen some some poor behavior spawn from smaller protests. It dosent help that the larger one on Saturday will be happening next to a pre planned "impeachment" rally against Obama. Everything around here is a little too hot right now and I'm sure this will add more crazy to the fire.

Sometimes I wonder if everyone even understands the impeachment process.

If mods were half-serious about racism around here, half this fucking board would be banned.

I'll bite. How so?

 

[Big Baybee]

The guy saying GZ didn't racially profile TM, then lists the reasons why GZ suspected TM of wrongdoing is hilarious.

 

[wildfire]

If mods were half-serious about racism around here, half this fucking board would be banned.

You've got an ignore button use it to save yourself some agony. These discussions just help us learn how entrenched the willful ignorance is even on this forum.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Such a well delivered and truthful message. The ugly truth. People that choose to try there best to hide and ignore blatant racism still so effervescent in this country are part of the problem. This case and the multiple facets race plays in it is only one publicized example.


This thread is mostly rancid though, has anybody been able to articulate why this message is wrong and hurtful to the cause? Other than ya know "Obama's stupid, he should stay out of this"?

 

[Chie Satonaka]

You've got an ignore button use it to save yourself some agony. These discussions just help us learn how entrenched the willful ignorance is even on this forum.

This is how I kept myself sane in the last Trayvon Martin thread.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Such a well delivered and truthful message. The ugly truth. People that choose to try there best to hide and ignore blatant racism still so effervescent in this country are part of the problem. This case and the multiple facets race plays in it is only one publicized example.


This thread is mostly rancid though, has anybody been able to articulate why this message is wrong and hurtful to the cause? Other than ya know "Obama's stupid, he should stay out of this"?

Anybody who finds Obama's speech hurtful is on crack. Likewise anyone who thinks he'll follow through with anything meaningful also is unfortunately.

 

[Vermillion]

If you're going to account suicide, make it more entertaining than this.

GAF, this is my pledge to you. If, for some reason, I decide to commit account suicide, there *will* be porn in it.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

GAF, this is my pledge to you. If, for some reason, I decide to commit account suicide, there *will* be porn in it.

If you do can you at least promise it will be interracial porn?