Change of Subject: from Zimmerman to the larger issue

[shrubnose]

]I see no better way to do it though

.[/QUOTE]




There is a better way, and ultimately that is the way that we are going to do it.

 

[Caine]

There is a better way, and ultimately that is the way that we are going to do it.

And what way is that?

 

[shrubnose]

And what way is that?

The way that we are are going to do things in the future after today's GOP joins the Whigs and we change a few laws in the USA.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[opendebate]

How are inequities in the justice system brought to surface via THIS case? Martin was not on trial. You understand and accept the verdict. WTF does this have to do with inequities in the justice system? We have proof that a black man killed an unarmed white teen in self defense and was acquitted... thus ending the argument that if the races were reversed the result would have been different. So please, explain WTF this case has to do with "Inequities in the Justice System".
When you can prove George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin then I will conceed that you have a point that this case has anything to do with that "frustration". Until then, people who are frustrated about it are acting upon their OWN prejudices that they brought into this case, and MAYBE they should look at themselves and fix themselves before crying out about this case being the reason to fix a problem that wasn't present in it to start with.
This case has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with that. I understand that there is a belief that institutional racism exists (because regular ass individual racism will ALWAYS exist) but when you bring it into THIS case as a means to talk about it....... others aren't going to take you seriously because it has NOTHING to do with this case, its just going to look like ridiculous race baiting and assuming racism exists where it didn't. Do you really want to have the conversation at time when it just makes you look like your going to assume racism is in everything? I don't think it would be quite productive.

I don't see any flaws in stand your ground. Any flaws seen are the result of someone assuming the facts of this case are different than what they are.
I don't see what that has to do with this case either. This one one young man who had used some drugs in his life and was fighting someone. I don't allow myself for a second to think that he is a "marker" for the rest of "African American" communities.
Again has nothing to do with this case.

I would be happy to share my take on this but I prefer actual conversation I'm not here to get into a screaming match with anyone.

 

[Caine]

I would be happy to share my take on this but I prefer actual conversation I'm not here to get into a screaming match with anyone.

I'll take that as "I'm still pushing the false idea that this case has something to do with race, even though I can't explain how, and I'm letting the media talking heads do my thinking for me."

I refuse to go on with the narrative that there is a "larger issue" here if those who keep wanting to talk about the "larger issue" can't even explain what it has to do with this case.

 

[opendebate]

I'll take that as "I'm still pushing the false idea that this case has something to do with race, even though I can't explain how, and I'm letting the media talking heads do my thinking for me."

I refuse to go on with the narrative that there is a "larger issue" here if those who keep wanting to talk about the "larger issue" can't even explain what it has to do with this case.

Actually that meant, if you are capable of conducting an intelligent civil conversation I have plenty to say about it and sources to back it up but clearly you would rather be a bully and make false negative assumptions. If you aren't up for it, I understand. Let me know when you are capable of behaving like a grown up and we can try again.

 

[Caine]

Actually that meant, if you are capable of conducting an intelligent civil conversation I have plenty to say about it and sources to back it up but clearly you would rather be a bully and make false negative assumptions. If you aren't up for it, I understand. Let me know when you are capable of behaving like a grown up and we can try again.

Please proceed with how this case has anything to do with race. I would be more than interested in someone giving an explanation for this.

 

[opendebate]

Please proceed with how this case has anything to do with race. I would be more than interested in someone giving an explanation for this.

Okay then.

I would say that first of all, we will never know whether Zimmerman's choices that night were racially motivated or not. Zimmerman is the only one who knows (even if only subconsciously) what truly motivated his actions. You can say the evidence leads you to believe he was not and another can look at the exact same information and come to the opposite conclusion. In the end, either conclusion will be influenced by our own bias. I guarantee you this, if Zimmerman knows now or ever does a little self reflection and decides his actions were in fact racially motivated, he will never come forward and say it. So we are left with opinions and we will probably never share the same opinion about that issue specifically.

So, we are left with the larger context and the larger context is what makes this case have something to do with race. Do you know what I mean by larger context?

 

[Caine]

Okay then.

I would say that first of all, we will never know whether Zimmerman's choices that night were racially motivated or not. Zimmerman is the only one who knows (even if only subconsciously) what truly motivated his actions. You can say the evidence leads you to believe he was not and another can look at the exact same information and come to the opposite conclusion. In the end, either conclusion will be influenced by our own bias. I guarantee you this, if Zimmerman knows now or ever does a little self reflection and decides his actions were in fact racially motivated, he will never come forward and say it. So we are left with opinions and we will probably never share the same opinion about that issue specifically.

So, we are left with the larger context and the larger context is what makes this case have something to do with race. Do you know what I mean by larger context?

I agree, we will never know whether Zimmerman's choices were racially motivated or not. I won't say that the evidence leads me to believe he was, or was not, because the evidence leads to NEITHER conclusion in a factual sense of the matter.

As for what makes this case have something to do with race...... That is the question I have been seeking an answer for for a while.

And the only thing I can come up with is that race baiters and for-ratings media have far too many people convinced that Zimmerman was profiling, and once some people get on that mode of thinking, it is EXTREMELY difficult to convince them otherwise.

The outrage and response that this case has gotten really disappoints and disturbs me. It puts ME in a mode of thinking that should I have to defend myself against a violent assault, and the perpetrator is black, my life will ultimately be destroyed just for being in the unfortunate situation that I had to defend myself against a black person.

 

[opendebate]

I agree, we will never know whether Zimmerman's choices were racially motivated or not. I won't say that the evidence leads me to believe he was, or was not, because the evidence leads to NEITHER conclusion in a factual sense of the matter.

As for what makes this case have something to do with race...... That is the question I have been seeking an answer for for a while.

And the only thing I can come up with is that race baiters and for-ratings media have far too many people convinced that Zimmerman was profiling, and once some people get on that mode of thinking, it is EXTREMELY difficult to convince them otherwise.

The outrage and response that this case has gotten really disappoints and disturbs me. It puts ME in a mode of thinking that should I have to defend myself against a violent assault, and the perpetrator is black, my life will ultimately be destroyed just for being in the unfortunate situation that I had to defend myself against a black person.

First of all, I appreciate the fact that we can both apply some logic when deciding what can and can not be proven and recognize when something is an unknown.

As for your concerns, I understand them. Think for a moment about how unfair that is. That someone would may make judgments and treat you unjustly based on nothing other than the fact that you are a white man. If you can see that as fundamentally unfair and if you agree that treating one another fairly is a goal worthy of aspiring too, if you expect that for yourself, then you can empathize with black Americans who face that situation daily.

I will speak to this comment seperately:

And the only thing I can come up with is that race baiters and for-ratings media have far too many people convinced that Zimmerman was profiling, and once some people get on that mode of thinking, it is EXTREMELY difficult to convince them otherwise.

The case may have been taken advantage of by people on both sides of the argument but that is the case with many social or political issues and does not necessarily mean that there is not a legitimate issue under all the sensationalized BS that has been piled on top of it.

You may not like some of this but try really reading it anyway, I will return the courtesy:

So, scoop all that crap off the top and look at what is underneath it. What you will find is a community of people who have a history of being treated unjustly in this country and they are sick and tired of it. We forced them from their home country against their will, piled them into boats one on top of another, separated them from their children and wives, beat them, raped them, killed them ... that is where their culture in this country began. If anyone thinks that didn't influence future generations they're crazy. Then we kept going, separate seats on the bus, separate schools and bathrooms and drinking fountains...more killing. They have had to fight for every scrap of equality they have managed to lay their hands on. And YES, it matters even though it was hundreds of years ago. Not to the extent that white america should feel guilty and responsible for the behavior of our ancestors but to the extent that we acknowledge that that history has influenced the people who lived it. Try to let it help you understand the generations of pain and frustration that fuels their frustration. Now leap to present day, look at the statistics on poverty, rates of incarceration, income inequality. Look at some of the postings on this very site. How can anyone deny that inequities still exist? This case was simply the final straw. Within the context of their experience, past and present, they deserve to be angry, any oppressed group has the right to demand equality. That is being demanded, that's the larger context.

PS: Those who have made the decision that Z was racially motivated will see a direct link between the case and these larger issues. Even if you do not agree with that perception however the complaints can stand on their own.

 

[Caine]

First of all, I appreciate the fact that we can both apply some logic when deciding what can and can not be proven and recognize when something is an unknown.

Agreed

As for your concerns, I understand them. Think for a moment about how unfair that is. That someone would may make judgments and treat you unjustly based on nothing other than the fact that you are a white man. If you can see that as fundamentally unfair and if you agree that treating one another fairly is a goal worthy of aspiring too, if you expect that for yourself, then you can empathize with black Americans who face that situation daily.

Its also a vicious circle of distrust... at least when it comes to strangers.

The case may have been taken advantage of by people on both sides of the argument but that is the case with many social or political issues and does not necessarily mean that there is not a legitimate issue under all the sensationalized BS that has been piled on top of it.

You may not like some of this but try really reading it anyway, I will return the courtesy:

So, scoop all that crap off the top and look at what is underneath it. What you will find is a community of people who have a history of being treated unjustly in this country and they are sick and tired of it. We forced them from their home country against their will, piled them into boats one on top of another, separated them from their children and wives, beat them, raped them, killed them ... that is where their culture in this country began. If anyone thinks that didn't influence future generations they're crazy. Then we kept going, separate seats on the bus, separate schools and bathrooms and drinking fountains...more killing. They have had to fight for every scrap of equality they have managed to lay their hands on. And YES, it matters even though it was hundreds of years ago. Not to the extent that white america should feel guilty and responsible for the behavior of our ancestors but to the extent that we acknowledge that that history has influenced the people who lived it. Try to let it help you understand the generations of pain and frustration that fuels their frustration. Now leap to present day, look at the statistics on poverty, rates of incarceration, income inequality. Look at some of the postings on this very site. How can anyone deny that inequities still exist? This case was simply the final straw. Within the context of their experience, past and present, they deserve to be angry, any oppressed group has the right to demand equality. That is being demanded, that's the larger context.

PS: Those who have made the decision that Z was racially motivated will see a direct link between the case and these larger issues. Even if you do not agree with that perception however the complaints can stand on their own.

I get it.... trust me I do.
You probably don't have a clue what it is like to have to respond to what I call "A Minority in my Neighborhood" suspicious person calls as a police officer, Ive had to do that more times than I can count. And it is always bad on ME because the person thinks I am a racist for harassing a black man who happens to live in a nice neighborhood, when the whole time it was his neighbor.

But, my problem is that the people who have jumped on the bandwagon of calling this a racist incident never seem to have the facts of the case right, don't bother to learn about it, just want to yell something out. Recently I think it was Jay-Z stuck his nose in the issue and made a damned fool of himself (at least to people who know what it is about).

Why is that such a problem? Hear me out. For those who can't be bothered with the facts, and scream "Racism", it sends a message, similar to the Duke Lacrosse case, that large numbers of black people in this country don't care to analyze anything when it comes to a perceived racial incident. They immediately assume "Racism" and then scream loudly and for a long time about "justice" and "changes" and "inequality". That doesn't make for a very good starting point for discussions on race relations in America. In fact it drives a wedge further between whites and blacks.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I don't think he was addressing the case, I think he was speaking to the issues that have risen around it. That being the case, it would not make sense for him to speak directly about the case other than to support the juries decision and acknowledge that the system worked as it is designed which I believe he did.

The issues that have arisen around this case have arisen because some have spread a false narrative on the case from the beginning. "White guy shoots an unarmed black kid who was walking home from the store (insert photo 12-year-old Martin)". If the president wants to weigh in on the issue, he should have a duty to be honest about the problem, rather than tiptoe around the root, should he not? Self-defense laws, police procedures, etc had nothing to do with this case. Trayvon wasn't shot because he was black, or wearing a hooded sweatshirt, or because he was simply walking home from the store, or because the police are suspicious of black people. He got shot because he was sitting on top of someone banging their head against the concrete.

This is how human beings are made, regardless of their color. Bad information in, bad choices and bad behavior out. Now, I do not believe that someone gets off the hook for their behavior because they have had bad experiences that have drilled the necessity for that behavior deep within them. They are still responsible and holding them responsible, I believe, allows people to retain a little dignity and mature. But, knowing this, best informs how you seek to change the behavior. Not everyone will respond, but many many will and it would be a generational effort but in time I believe it would bring about the greatest and longest lasting changes. This is also not the great white mission, this is best executed by members of those communities.

The president talking about how he sympathizes with Trayvon's family because of his background is all well & good, provided he also does what you mentioned above. He's in a position to do exactly that. He did throw in a little bit of personal responsibilty as an aside, but since he left out the part about Trayvon's actions specifically in this case, what's the point of having the discussion if not to enflame tensions?

 

[FederalRepublic]

It is quite evident that there is wealth inequality in our country, which causes gaps in society, which tend to perpetuate how persons from another race affect our society as a whole.
Attitudes toward minority groups can sometimes be extremely negative because of perceptions, which then lead to a collective idea of racism.
Forty-four million Americans are uninsured, therefore, it makes sense that not every one receives the same medical care, and some receive none at all. In a rich country like ours, so many children go to bed hungry at night. To add to their misfortune, some children live in squalor with drug-addicted parents, a who among us is there in their time of need?
I'm reminded of the story of Liz Murray, who went from homeless on the streets of New York, eating toothpaste, to become a graduate of Harvard.
I've been taught that we owe each other a mutual respect, regardless of our circumstances, and the greatest feeling is being able to reach down and help a child to stand up.
If our laws need to be changed, and they do, then it is our responsibility to act accordingly.
I don't believe as I've heard recently that all white people want to abuse or kill black people. That negative type of rhetoric will set us back and not allow us to go forward.
Education will break through fear.

Absent the bolded statements, who would disagree with this? How would you propose to change it?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Okay then.

I would say that first of all, we will never know whether Zimmerman's choices that night were racially motivated or not. Zimmerman is the only one who knows (even if only subconsciously) what truly motivated his actions. You can say the evidence leads you to believe he was not and another can look at the exact same information and come to the opposite conclusion. In the end, either conclusion will be influenced by our own bias. I guarantee you this, if Zimmerman knows now or ever does a little self reflection and decides his actions were in fact racially motivated, he will never come forward and say it. So we are left with opinions and we will probably never share the same opinion about that issue specifically.

So, we are left with the larger context and the larger context is what makes this case have something to do with race. Do you know what I mean by larger context?

Question: Do you think Zimmerman would have acted differently if the person sitting on top of him banging his head on the ground had been any race other than black?

 

[FederalRepublic]

As for your concerns, I understand them. Think for a moment about how unfair that is. That someone would may make judgments and treat you unjustly based on nothing other than the fact that you are a white man. If you can see that as fundamentally unfair and if you agree that treating one another fairly is a goal worthy of aspiring too, if you expect that for yourself, then you can empathize with black Americans who face that situation daily.

I have to say, the above statement is mildly offensive.

I will speak to this comment seperately:

And the only thing I can come up with is that race baiters and for-ratings media have far too many people convinced that Zimmerman was profiling, and once some people get on that mode of thinking, it is EXTREMELY difficult to convince them otherwise.

The case may have been taken advantage of by people on both sides of the argument but that is the case with many social or political issues and does not necessarily mean that there is not a legitimate issue under all the sensationalized BS that has been piled on top of it.

You may not like some of this but try really reading it anyway, I will return the courtesy:

So, scoop all that crap off the top and look at what is underneath it. What you will find is a community of people who have a history of being treated unjustly in this country and they are sick and tired of it. We forced them from their home country against their will, piled them into boats one on top of another, separated them from their children and wives, beat them, raped them, killed them ... that is where their culture in this country began. If anyone thinks that didn't influence future generations they're crazy. Then we kept going, separate seats on the bus, separate schools and bathrooms and drinking fountains...more killing. They have had to fight for every scrap of equality they have managed to lay their hands on. And YES, it matters even though it was hundreds of years ago. Not to the extent that white america should feel guilty and responsible for the behavior of our ancestors but to the extent that we acknowledge that that history has influenced the people who lived it. Try to let it help you understand the generations of pain and frustration that fuels their frustration. Now leap to present day, look at the statistics on poverty, rates of incarceration, income inequality. Look at some of the postings on this very site. How can anyone deny that inequities still exist? This case was simply the final straw. Within the context of their experience, past and present, they deserve to be angry, any oppressed group has the right to demand equality. That is being demanded, that's the larger context.

PS: Those who have made the decision that Z was racially motivated will see a direct link between the case and these larger issues. Even if you do not agree with that perception however the complaints can stand on their own.

How many people are there arguing/debating on this forum who don't recognize the history and inequities mentioned above? Probably a handful, but I doubt it's more than that.

 

[lolabird]

Absent the bolded statements, who would disagree with this? How would you propose to change it?

People need to learn to accept personal responsibility for their actions and stop blaming others for the way they feel.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other prominent Civil Rights leaders need to make a visit to Chicago and deliver their speeches there, as well bringing to the forefront the deaths of innocent children.
Laws can be changed when we vote to elect officials who are more interested in their country than themselves.
I'm sorry for the death of Trayvon Martin and that blacks were sold into slavery; it's a sad tale of our history, but we can't move forward if all we think about is the past.
Congress, who has the lowest rating ever, should stay in Washington and work on issues instead of taking another recess. The men and women, who serve us, are paid by us and work for us; therefore, they should work to improve our economy instead of continually voting to repeal Obamacare. Otherwise, submit a healthcare plan to help the over 40 million uninsured Americans.
The Republicans need to stop spelunking in women's vaginas and voting to end abortion. Women are quite capable of making their own decisions, particularly concerning their own health issues.

 

[FederalRepublic]

The men and women, who serve us, are paid by us and work for us; therefore, they should work to improve our economy instead of continually voting to repeal Obamacare. Otherwise, submit a healthcare plan to help the over 40 million uninsured Americans.

You had me right up until this point. Obamacare is a drag on the economy. Working to repeal it is working to improve the economy.

 

[opendebate]

Agreed

Its also a vicious circle of distrust... at least when it comes to strangers.
I get it.... trust me I do.
You probably don't have a clue what it is like to have to respond to what I call "A Minority in my Neighborhood" suspicious person calls as a police officer, Ive had to do that more times than I can count. And it is always bad on ME because the person thinks I am a racist for harassing a black man who happens to live in a nice neighborhood, when the whole time it was his neighbor.
But, my problem is that the people who have jumped on the bandwagon of calling this a racist incident never seem to have the facts of the case right, don't bother to learn about it, just want to yell something out. Recently I think it was Jay-Z stuck his nose in the issue and made a damned fool of himself (at least to people who know what it is about).
Why is that such a problem? Hear me out. For those who can't be bothered with the facts, and scream "Racism", it sends a message, similar to the Duke Lacrosse case, that large numbers of black people in this country don't care to analyze anything when it comes to a perceived racial incident. They immediately assume "Racism" and then scream loudly and for a long time about "justice" and "changes" and "inequality". That doesn't make for a very good starting point for discussions on race relations in America. In fact it drives a wedge further between whites and blacks.

So you are in a unique position here. Which you obviously realize. You have an opportunity, being a cop, to see the best examples of everyone's worst behavior. So you see the racism played out when those people make the calls that in reality there is no logical reason to make and you see why (they feel frightened or suspicious anyway) when you are confronted with what you see as illogical anger and acting out on the part of the people they are afraid of. You are right it's an awful self perpetuating cycle. But it also allows you a rare opportunity to understand and be empathetic because you have seen first hand experiences of what black Americans who are being subjected to. That everyone is being painted with the same brush. That because this black man is a criminal over here then the black kid walking through my neighborhood is also a criminal. That even if you are not a criminal but let's dress in a way that helps you identify and belong within the community you are a part of, you are identified as a criminal. And the worst part is that many people who decide in advance who you are don't even give you the opportunity to prove them wrong because they are being motivated by fear and fear has a powerful grip.

As far as the case and people screaming racism when it can not be proven. I understand your point and can't argue that from your perspective they are reinforcing negative stereotypes by screaming racism when, as we mentioned earlier, it can not be proven logically. But providing evidence for a court case and knowing it because of your life experience are different matters. I can understand their certainty that it was a factor, which allows me in turn to see that to them there is a perfectly logical connection. We all learn from our experiences and if you have a lifetime of you and everyone you know being suspected or arrested or harassed or worse because of the color of their skin then it follows that when a young man of color is killed when doing something really innocent you are going to scream racism, it would appear illogical not to because it would contradict what your experiences have taught you.

Think of it this way, if you have a history of women who cheat on you. You start a relationship with a new person, you have high hopes and bam...she cheats too. She promises you it will never happen again and you believe her, you stay together have faith and hope in the future you get married. Then one day you come home and find a pair of strange boxers in your unmade bed and your wife is in the shower in the middle of the day.....what are you gonna think? Now, you can't prove that she did anything but I bet you are gonna start that conversation pissed and no one would blame you. Is that really you driving a wedge or, under the circumstances, is that you demanding something you are due

 

[opendebate]

The issues that have arisen around this case have arisen because some have spread a false narrative on the case from the beginning. "White guy shoots an unarmed black kid who was walking home from the store (insert photo 12-year-old Martin)". If the president wants to weigh in on the issue, he should have a duty to be honest about the problem, rather than tiptoe around the root, should he not? Self-defense laws, police procedures, etc had nothing to do with this case. Trayvon wasn't shot because he was black, or wearing a hooded sweatshirt, or because he was simply walking home from the store, or because the police are suspicious of black people. He got shot because he was sitting on top of someone banging their head against the concrete.

The president talking about how he sympathizes with Trayvon's family because of his background is all well & good, provided he also does what you mentioned above. He's in a position to do exactly that. He did throw in a little bit of personal responsibilty as an aside, but since he left out the part about Trayvon's actions specifically in this case, what's the point of having the discussion if not to enflame tensions?

Extending sympathy to a mother and father who lost a son is humane not political. I suspect that your perception of his remark regarding TM's responsibility as an "aside" is a judgement on your part because he didn't hammer that point well enough for you. It seems as if you want him to assign blame and that would be crossing the line, THAT would be getting involved in the case instead of addressing the context. It also appears that his speech "inflamed tensions" for YOU because he did not do what you want him to do , which is blame TM.

You are only looking at this case from your point of view only. By calling accusations of racism a "false narrative" and saying the issues around it have only arisen because of this false narrative you are dismissing the experiences of thousands of people to whom, within the context of their lives and experience, this case having a racial component makes perfect sense. Reach across the isle a little. The context is real, racism is real, the case touched on something that existed before this case was even a twinkle in George Zimmermans eye. It didn't CREATE anything.

In addition, you don't know who started this conflict and neither do I. You don't know how threatened TM felt that night or if because he did feel threatened he felt it was necessary to protect himself. Endorsing the notion that TM was "banging" GZ's head against the concrete without provocation implies that you have made the assumption that he is doing for what then ???? why because he's a violent black kid? You are not in a position to make a statement, anymore than I am, about who started that fight or if GZ was justified in killing this boy. When you do, the direction you take that, the direction in which your assumptions are guided speak to your attitudes towards young black men.

I'm thinking you have either stopped reading now or there is smoke coming out your ears, but I won't let that stop me.

An excerpt from the speech:

So here he says that he is going to speak to the context, not the case:

.....once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago....


He also said: this statement acknowledges responsibility on the part of the African American Community

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence

and again here:
I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else

And continued with while acknowledging the validity of the frustrations within the African American community and their right to protest what they perceive as an injustice, but urged that things must remain nonviolent:

as long as it remains nonviolent

 

[opendebate]

Question: Do you think Zimmerman would have acted differently if the person sitting on top of him banging his head on the ground had been any race other than black?

There is no way I could know that. The statements he made do indicate that he had already decided this kid was guilty but whether or not that was racially motivated I could not claim to know. I believe it was, but I would not state that as factual.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Extending sympathy to a mother and father who lost a son is humane not political.

True, unless you're doing it for the camera. Then it is political. Not necessarily a bad thing, but still political.

I suspect that your perception of his remark regarding TM's responsibility as an "aside" is a judgement on your part because he didn't hammer that point well enough for you. It seems as if you want him to assign blame and that would be crossing the line, THAT would be getting involved in the case instead of addressing the context. It also appears that his speech "inflamed tensions" for YOU because he did not do what you want him to do , which is blame TM.

No. Not really. He didn't address TM's responsibility at all. He made a generic statement about black people taking responsibility for their actions. When there is such a large portion of the population who actually believe the Zimmerman case is about a white guy who found a black kid walking home from the store and decided to murder him, you might think it important to mention it specifically. You might call it a teachable moment. The speech comes off more like "Zimmerman did murder this kid for no reason, but we just can't prove it, so we'll just have to swallow our sorrow and move on."

You are only looking at this case from your point of view only. By calling accusations of racism a "false narrative" and saying the issues around it have only arisen because of this false narrative you are dismissing the experiences of thousands of people to whom, within the context of their lives and experience, this case having a racial component makes perfect sense. Reach across the isle a little. The context is real, racism is real, the case touched on something that existed before this case was even a twinkle in George Zimmermans eye. It didn't CREATE anything.

There is and has been a false narrative in this case from the beginning. The very first news story I read about it created a blatantly false picture of the actual events. If you think that's simply my point of view, then I don't believe you've been following the case with your eyes open. Yes, the context may be real, racism is real for sure, but it's been injected into this case. If two lilly-white girls scouts had gotten into this conflict, the one who was on top slamming the head of the other one would still be the one most responsible for the outcome. For the president to omit that is irresponsible.

In addition, you don't know who started this conflict and neither do I.

We do know that TM confronted GZ, you only have to look at the timeline and the map to see that. It's also fairly obvious that the confrontation became physical almost immediately. (per RJ)

You don't know how threatened TM felt that night or if because he did feel threatened he felt it was necessary to protect himself.

That's true, and I can imagine that possibility pretty easily, but only one of the parties involved thought it was serious enough to call the police. TM called his girlfriend instead.

Endorsing the notion that TM was "banging" GZ's head against the concrete without provocation implies that you have made the assumption that he is doing for what then ???? why because he's a violent black kid? You are not in a position to make a statement, anymore than I am, about who started that fight or if GZ was justified in killing this boy. When you do, the direction you take that, the direction in which your assumptions are guided speak to your attitudes towards young black men.

I'm haven't made any statement about why TM would be banging GZ's head into the concrete. Since you ask (and this is racial), I'll tell you that I think he may have had a chip on his shoulder thinking some white do-good'er was checking up on him just because he was black, and then decided to kick his ass. Pure speculation, but there is witness testimony and physical evidence that leads me to think that. Either way, he's sitting on top of someone continuing to bang their head into the concrete as they are screaming for help. You'll probably say that I don't know that's how it happened, but if we can listen to an audio tape of a guy screaming for help and honestly try to argue that the screams are coming from a person who's in the process of kicking someone's ass and doesn't have a scratch on them, then I'd say there's no point in discussing any of this further. People do stupid things for stupid reasons, like this guy who started shooting because "he bumped me" Texas Man Allegedly Opens Fire After Being 'Bumped Into' - YouTube.

I'm thinking you have either stopped reading now or there is smoke coming out your ears, but I won't let that stop me.

There you go profiling again...

An excerpt from the speech:

So here he says that he is going to speak to the context, not the case:

.....once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago....


He also said: this statement acknowledges responsibility on the part of the African American Community

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence

and again here:
I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else

And continued with while acknowledging the validity of the frustrations within the African American community and their right to protest what they perceive as an injustice, but urged that things must remain nonviolent:

as long as it remains nonviolent

Like I said before. He waded into this case and furthered the false narrative. He had the opportunity to calm the tensions, but he passed on it. He did say that people should not be violent, but that's meaningless if this case was about a young boy who got shot by a white racist for no good reason. If that's truly the case, they have every right to be violent. I certainly would be if it were my family...

 

[FederalRepublic]

There is no way I could know that.

There's no way you could know for sure, but come on. We're talking about reason here. If you suspected someone was up to no good, call the police to report them, and a few minutes later find yourself on your back with said suspicious person sitting on top of you banging your head against the concrete, do you think the color of their skin is a question you stop to ponder? Honest question, please don't sidestep it.

 

[opendebate]

There's no way you could know for sure, but come on. We're talking about reason here. If you suspected someone was up to no good, call the police to report them, and a few minutes later find yourself on your back with said suspicious person sitting on top of you banging your head against the concrete, do you think the color of their skin is a question you stop to ponder? Honest question, please don't sidestep it.

I didn't side step it. I stand my answer. Here is the problem when people blend there assumptions with fact you start to have a hard time separating them again and actual communication and logic go down the toilet along with any hope for resolution or solution. The thing about "reason" is that it is a lot like common sense. It takes a very different shape with different people because it is tainted with your biases with the individuals experiences.

The operative word in the rest of your post is "suspected". This again an unknown and is subject to a persons biases. GZ never should have played cop. If he truly thought this was a dangerous person who he would need a firearm to protect himself from what the hell was he thinking following the guy and getting out of his car. That was stupid. I am not saying that both people did not make mistakes that night but in my opinion GZ made the first stupid move and put himself in danger.

Your question regarding stopping to ponder the color of his skin really doesn't make any sense. He didn't shoot TM because he was black. I suspect however that he did follow him because he was black. Although, there is a possibility that the fact that he was black made GZ more fearful that night when TM was on top of him and he thought deadly force was necessary whereas if it was a white kid me may not have felt it was. No one will ever know, so this is just speculation. Because it IS just speculation on my part I stick with my first answer.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I didn't side step it. I stand my answer. Here is the problem when people blend there assumptions with fact you start to have a hard time separating them again and actual communication and logic go down the toilet along with any hope for resolution or solution. The thing about "reason" is that it is a lot like common sense. It takes a very different shape with different people because it is tainted with your biases with the individuals experiences.

The operative word in the rest of your post is "suspected". This again an unknown and is subject to a persons biases. GZ never should have played cop. If he truly thought this was a dangerous person who he would need a firearm to protect himself from what the hell was he thinking following the guy and getting out of his car. That was stupid. I am not saying that both people did not make mistakes that night but in my opinion GZ made the first stupid move and put himself in danger.

Your question regarding stopping to ponder the color of his skin really doesn't make any sense. He didn't shoot TM because he was black. I suspect however that he did follow him because he was black. Although, there is a possibility that the fact that he was black made GZ more fearful that night when TM was on top of him and he thought deadly force was necessary whereas if it was a white kid me may not have felt it was. No one will ever know, so this is just speculation. Because it IS just speculation on my part I stick with my first answer.

I would argue that staying in your car and NOT following a suspicious person in your neighborhood would be stupid. Then again, I know every single person on my street and we look out for each other. Therein lies the rub.

 

[Caine]

I didn't side step it. I stand my answer. Here is the problem when people blend there assumptions with fact you start to have a hard time separating them again and actual communication and logic go down the toilet along with any hope for resolution or solution. The thing about "reason" is that it is a lot like common sense. It takes a very different shape with different people because it is tainted with your biases with the individuals experiences.

The operative word in the rest of your post is "suspected". This again an unknown and is subject to a persons biases. GZ never should have played cop. If he truly thought this was a dangerous person who he would need a firearm to protect himself from what the hell was he thinking following the guy and getting out of his car. That was stupid. I am not saying that both people did not make mistakes that night but in my opinion GZ made the first stupid move and put himself in danger.

Your question regarding stopping to ponder the color of his skin really doesn't make any sense. He didn't shoot TM because he was black. I suspect however that he did follow him because he was black. Although, there is a possibility that the fact that he was black made GZ more fearful that night when TM was on top of him and he thought deadly force was necessary whereas if it was a white kid me may not have felt it was. No one will ever know, so this is just speculation. Because it IS just speculation on my part I stick with my first answer.

I would like to point out that your post makes it sound as if you believe Zimmerman had the gun specifically because of this particular "suspicious person". Like he went back home and grabbed it just to follow Trayvon around.

If you honestly believe that is so...... there is no hope for you.

Otherwise, I'll assume it was an oversight by you.