George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

scotth266:
It's rather ridiculous considering that many people's first reaction is to run away, not to fight back - unless of course they feel there's nowhere to run.

Because, deciding you have better things to do with your time than getting yourself into fights you aren't actually forced into is ridiculous.

I suppose some people see retreat more as running back to daddy, and some people see it more as "Fucking hell, I don't have time for this shit..."

thaluikhain:

Super Not Cosmo:
Here's another fun fact regarding Stand Your Ground and Florida. Blacks are not only claiming it at a higher rate when compared with their overall population than white Floridians but they are also claiming it successfully at a higher rate than white people in Florida. Contrary to what the media would have you believe Stand Your Ground is actually benefitting black citizens of Florida more than whites and is not this law that makes it open season on the black people of this country.

Do you have a source for this? Because I've read that it was the other way around, but there wasn't really enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

Why would there not be a racial disparity? There's more black on white's than white on black crimes. I don't understand that point at all?

Vegosiux:

scotth266:
It's rather ridiculous considering that many people's first reaction is to run away, not to fight back - unless of course they feel there's nowhere to run.

Because, deciding you have better things to do with your time than getting yourself into fights you aren't actually forced into is ridiculous.

I suppose some people see retreat more as running back to daddy, and some people see it more as "Fucking hell, I don't have time for this shit..."

Um, what?

I do not see the connection between what I wrote and your response. I think you're implying that I was advocating people pick fights they don't need to be in, which is a bunch of baloney. I was saying that most people will run rather than fight, and implementing SYG laws isn't going to change that - it just provides legal clarification that those who don't run are covered for a self-defense case.

I'm not belittling people who DO run. When someone breaks into your house or tries to assault you, running away is a perfectly reasonable reaction. However, I feel those who choose to fight back - strictly to defend themselves - should be protected.

thaluikhain:

Super Not Cosmo:
Here's another fun fact regarding Stand Your Ground and Florida. Blacks are not only claiming it at a higher rate when compared with their overall population than white Floridians but they are also claiming it successfully at a higher rate than white people in Florida. Contrary to what the media would have you believe Stand Your Ground is actually benefitting black citizens of Florida more than whites and is not this law that makes it open season on the black people of this country.

Do you have a source for this? Because I've read that it was the other way around, but there wasn't really enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

I'll try to post the exact link later today as I'm posting this on my phone but you can find the relevant information by looking up The Tampa Bay Times' database of stand your ground shootings. It lets you search by race of accused race of victim, successful claims, claims that lead to a conviction, pending claims and so on. What you find is that when you look at the claims made by blacks vs claims made by whites you find that despite making up only 15% of Florida's total population blacks accounted for 33% of the stand your ground claims and of those claims only 25% have lead to a conviction, while 55% have been successful and the accused walked, and 20% are still pending. Meanwhile whites, who make up 83% of the population make up only 58% of all claims with 33% of those claims ending in failure/conviction, 52% being successfully claimed, and 14% still pending.

You could just skip the nonsense and outright accuse me of bias...

If you prefer: you're biased.

Your last paragraph makes me want to say "fuck off" so my blood pressure remains low, but since you so kindly implied that I ignore conservative bullshit

Apologies for pissing you off, as that wasn't my intent. I'm not saying you're a gullible tool or uncritical scion of the American right who believes anything Fox News says. I'm digressing into cognition; "we" (i.e. you and the rest of the human race including me) are inclined to apply different standards to different things depending on our leanings, and we'll frequently do so subconsciously. In other words, I implied I tend to ignore liberal bullshit: asked to give examples of asinine politics, I would instinctively reach for examples of conservative inadequacy.

I do think black advocacy groups are in a hard place. Frankly, I just don't think enough of America either cares about the plight of urban blacks, or they care but don't think it's their responsibility to sort any of it out. I think most advocacy groups (not just blacks) are also reluctant to highlight internal problems of their community, as whilst they may be the most significant problems they have, doing so unfortunately also gives ammunition to their political enemies to blame or attack them, which those enemies are not reluctant to use. In many cases to where they go off on one, I suspect, they are actually being reactive to their own supporters, rather than driving them.

Agema:

I do think black advocacy groups are in a hard place. Frankly, I just don't think enough of America either cares about the plight of urban blacks, or they care but don't think it's their responsibility to sort any of it out.

I don't think the problem is lack of caring, so much as it is a lack of awareness. People just don't realize the toll generational poverty can take on an area: you only realize just how crazy it can be when you go out and interview people (I've done some monthly newsletter work for my local Salvation Army.)

I know that I was a lot more ignorant to certain facts (like the lack of jobs for people who've been incarcerated, forcing them to commit more crimes) a few months back. I've since tried to find more information about the true state of my community.

I think most advocacy groups (not just blacks) are also reluctant to highlight internal problems of their community, as whilst they may be the most significant problems they have, doing so unfortunately also gives ammunition to their political enemies to blame or attack them, which those enemies are not reluctant to use. In many cases to where they go off on one, I suspect, they are actually being reactive to their own supporters, rather than driving them.

Not quite sure which one you're referring to in "go off on one," here. But when it comes to the rest of the post: I feel that advocacy groups need to take a more active driving role. We've seen the results in reactive advocacy: it's got the sound and the fury, but no positive direction to point it at.

Reactive advocacy also only works when you have big events to react to: drive-based advocacy has no such limitation, and as long as you can convince the public that there is a pressing need, they will side with you.

You certainly have a point that many opponents of black advocacy groups have used the significant problems facing black communities as ammunition, but they'll do this regardless (and have been for quite some time.) Black advocacy groups need to step up and say: "Yeah, these are problems. Here's how we can fix them, and what we need from you" instead of pushing said problems under the rug. It solves the awareness problem and turns the negative statistics into a more positive viewpoint: the viewpoint of something to fix, rather than something to lament.

At least, that's my take on the matter.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Besides, I don't think Martin actually did start the fight, at least not unprovoked. I think zimmerman confronted him in an aggressive manner, and either threw the first punch, or was aggressive enough that Martin felt like he didn't have a choice.

The only bodily injuries on Trayvon were his gunshot wound and cuts on his knuckles, obviously brought about from punching Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Zimmerman threw any punch at all, much less the first punch. As for Trayvon not having any choices, consider that just prior to the fight Trayvon doubled back and approached Zimmerman. Trayvon chose to approach Zimmerman, Trayvon chose not to continue home, Trayvon chose to punch Zimmerman, Trayvon chose get on top of Zimmerman and pound his head into the concrete.

Owyn_Merrilin:
And even if he didn't start the fight, he still did wrong, and he still created the situation. Zimmerman started it, and they both escalated it until one of them was dead.

First, I don't care for this term "created the situation". Speaking very generally, we all continuously create all "situations" collaboratively with the people around us (intentionally or not). To say that Zimmerman "created the situation" is an ex cathedra declaration (with the media in the place of the Pope) that Trayvon lacked any agency and that all responsibility will be assigned to Zimmerman.

Secondly, you're essentially saying one of two things and from your statement it isn't clear which:

1. That Zimmerman engineered a confrontation with Trayvon, even though there is no evidence for this.
2. Or that Zimmerman didn't intend a confrontation, but invited a confrontation accidentally. This is obviously a poor rationale in Trayvon's defense.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked