Trayvon Martin - Page 24

**Malorn** · 2012-04-20, 08:29 PM

Meh.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 11:57 AM

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/04/4384...y-change-case/

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-26, 12:25 PM

I hate to break it to you guys (maybe you're not white, I have no way of knowing) but being white is awesome. It's way better than the alternatives, at least when it comes to ease of living.

Being a while MALE is like being dealt three aces. Being born a white male who lives in America is pretty much a winning hand. I mean it does get better... a RICH white male American, for instance... but it's certainly very rare.

It's okay to admit it. It doesn't make you racist. I find a lot of sorta-racist white people have a hard time admitting it, because they feel like it will out them as racists. Don't worry, it won't. All that other ignorant stuff you say about minority differences makes you racist; admitting that being white grants you advantages doesn't. It's safe. Trust me.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 12:29 PM

If it ever gave me an advantage, I never knew about it. But I can point out a dozen plus incidents where it has hurt me.

Figment · 2012-04-21, 04:23 AM

And when you see criminals everywhere it is called paranoia. Paranoia is not a positive attribute.

Baneblade · 2012-04-21, 10:11 AM

I wouldn't call it paranoia to see, report, and confront a suspicious person.

To be completely frank, I doubt the Zman would have capped Martin's ass without a good reason. We will see what the trial brings.

Figment · 2012-04-21, 08:00 PM

True. Regarding the paranoia, the one thing I wonder about is that the expectations he may have had in advance include this stereotype and from what he said in the phonecall, that he jumped to conclusions a lot.

I can imagine that some people are fed up with the suspicions themselves being there in the first place. Just because it is a black guy with a hood... I can also imagine it fits the stereotype.

But if he seemed to be on drugs (was there an autopsy on Martin?), it is even less wise to follow because he may react unpredictable too. Either way, we don't know if he had alternatives to firing the gun or that his judgment was "reasonable", whatever that word means in law...

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-23, 07:38 AM

I'm made very uncomfortable with the idea that somehow wearing a hoodie makes you 'suspicious', and that someone who is not a police officer can confront you, while armed, as a result.

It's like saying that women who dress in revealing clothes who then get sexually assaulted are somehow to blame for what happened to them. It's a common feeling held by people, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

We live in a free society. We are allowed to wear whatever we like and behave however we like insofar as we are not harming anyone. And to fend off any potential straw men, yes of course there are things you can wear that can cause harm; a Hitler costume in a synagogue or a KKK robe at a hip-hop concert and so on; there are things you can wear that can incite violence. But that wasn't the case with his hoodie. If you disagree with me on this, I'm sorry, but you're wrong and I'm not really sure I could be convinced otherwise. I'm not sure what society you wish to live in, but it's not a free one, nor one I would want to have anything to do with.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-23, 02:36 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-24, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Everything you do contributes to others' perceptions of you. The way you dress is a huge part of it. It's unavoidable. People form opinions based on how you look and how you behave. Some looks & behaviors are red flags in peoples' minds. Signal enough of them and you might get unwanted attention.

You think you're going to have the same chance at getting a job as a bank teller with a bunch of facial tattoos and dressed like a bum as the clean-cut & clean-skinned guy in a suit? Don't be ridiculous - the way you dress and the way you look & behave tells others important information about you and they use that information. You may not think that it should matter, but that's reality. You can complain about it or you can evolve and use it to your advantage.

There's a long, deep gulf between not getting a job, and ending up shot dead, because of how you dress.

This is not always clean cut. Someone who got mugged walking through a bad part of town could always be criticized of not being street-smart and putting themselves at risk. That goes for other things too.

This did not happen in a 'bad part of town'. If we're profiling people based on clothing, it could happen anywhere (and did, in this case), and that's not a society I want to live in. Do you? Does anyone?

There's a reason some Muslim communities want women clothed head-to-toe, and it's because they don't want them tempting the men by putting bad throughts into their head. When women flaunt their goods they put ideas into heads and instill lust and desire. The Muslim method addresses this with a "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy to reduce the danger. I'm not advocating that lifestyle and I'm not saying that means women are entirely responsible for what happens to them, but I think it would be silly to say their choices always have no effect on the outcome. Sometimes they do, directly or indirectly, whether it was a decision to take a shortcut through an alley or to show off the goods. Many women do the latter to get attention, but it isn't always the good kind of attention.

You are dancing on the very edge of misogyny here. We are talking about people here; real people, and not products to be browsed, or "goods" to be purchased or inspected for quality. (Note my bold highlight above). The subjugation of women in strict muslim cultures is a point of shame for the species as a whole and morally outrageous. Anybody who understands even remotely the injustices committed to women in countries such as these (and indeed, in some ways, in places closer to home) should find that mode of thinking repulsive in the extreme, and indefensible.

Men are responsible for their own behavior. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong and need to take some time to do some soul-searching and contemplate why it is you think it's okay to blame females for the actions of males who, by every measure we have available to us, are in full control of their faculties. External mind control is not yet a reality.

That doesn't stop other people from forming opinions about you based on the decisions you freely make. That's their right in a free society. It's also their right to protect themselves and their property, so if you behave as though you might be harming one of those or have intent to harm then you may well get confronted about it. If you're poking around cars (which by itself is not a crime, but is suspicious in that it indicates you might be casing targets), or behaving erratically (which is not a crime, but is suspicious in that it may indicate you are unstable or may be a danger to others or yourself). Good citizens are well within their rights to take notice of that and do something/say something about it. Just as you can do what you want so can they.

People can have whatever opinions they want. And if they feel they are within their rights to call the police on me because they are racist, or because they are in their 60s and think that a kid with baggy jeans is obviously selling crack, or whatever reason they feel; that's why we have the police. That's why we pay taxes to fund them. I might find it insulting, or an inconvenience, but that's their right. If they do it too much, or for frivolous or petty reasons, we have laws in place to deal with that. The police are an invaluable resource and I have no problem with their utilization.

In this case, a private, untrained, joe-shmoe citizen took it upon himself to go be Batman, and as a result an unarmed teenager ended up dead on the ground. If innocent people are being killed, then the system of thinking that led to those events was broken and needs fixing. It's broken in all of us, or anyone who thinks what Zimmerman did was anything other than manslaughter.

I don't care if Trayvon was wearing a hoodie that said "kill whitey" and was slinking around with shifty eyes, rubbing his hands like Snidely Whiplash. He didn't break into anything, or commit any crimes that are in evidence. Zimmerman called the police, but then took matters into his own hands after being explicitly told not to and now someone is dead.

Not a society I have any interest in living in. That is why I am so categorically against that kind of thinking, Malorn. Because in that world, innocent people who might otherwise be alive today end up dead.

Figment · 2012-04-23, 08:34 AM

You mean this slippery slope? : "You're free to do as you please, as long you conform to our norms and standards in clothing, culture, religion and the way we want you to behave."

>.>

Yes, that makes me uncomfortable too. The problem I recognise from the other side as well though, is that certain sub-cultures (deliberately?) create an uncomfortable aura for others around them due to the things (morality, values, beliefs and ideologies) they associate themselves with. Typically on purpose. Sometimes just to shock and be trendy (punks), to show they belong together (clubs, clans, groups), often to make a (political or other) statement (skinheads). Some of these can come over quite threatening.

I mean, motorgangs, skinheads, hooligans, "pride" groups, you name it. Tons of different sub-cultures that often result in a more distant and less trusting interaction. Judging by the cover, very annoying, but an innate tendency of humans.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-23, 10:24 AM

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, though. I don't have a problem with what anyone is wearing, for any reason, right up until they start to infringe on me personally. and I don't mean my ideas. I mean posing me physical harm, or restricting my movements, etc.

Your rights to wear whatever you want and say whatever you want end about 4-5 inches around my body. Aside from that, I don't really care. I can always just be somewhere else if it makes me uncomfortable.

Figment · 2012-04-24, 08:46 AM

Agree fully with the assesment on who is responsible for their own behaviour, where external "stimuli" (as I'll just call what Malorn described with "flaunting their goods") can never lead to an action and then shifted under the pretense of a reaction, thereby placing the blame on the person who supposedly initiated the action. In this case that would be the female. You can not blame someone for walking somewhere or wearing particular things if that leads to them being the victim of crimes.

Only those who committed the crime can be held responsible for acting upon whatever opportunity or stimulus they (claim to have) "received": as long as there is no explicit consent by the victim, there's no reason to act. If people believe clothing to be an approval of a crime, then they are simply mentally ill.

Leaving a door open is not an invitation to come in. It creates an opportunity, yes, but then that would mean you should never be free to open your door. Is it naive and not recommendable to leave a door open? Certainly, but not because you invite people in, but because there are criminals actively looking for opportunities. Yet surely that doesn't mean you are to be blamed for those that intend to commit a crime the moment they get an opportunity?

@Sheppy: regarding the taking matters into his own hand after being told not to... I'm not sure we can be sure that's the case: verbally, Zimmerman approved/agreed/submitted to the order not to follow Martin. We don't know what happened after wards. If he returned to his car, but ran into or got jumped by Martin (for whatever reason), then technically he did abandon the pursuit.

We simply don't know what happened.

Quovatis · 2012-04-24, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

@Sheppy: regarding the taking matters into his own hand after being told not to... I'm not sure we can be sure that's the case: verbally, Zimmerman approved/agreed/submitted to the order not to follow Martin.

He was told "you don't need to do that" in regards to following Martin. That's very different than being told "stop doing that" by the dispatcher. A minor point, but worth repeating.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-04-24, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

He was told "you don't need to do that" in regards to following Martin. That's very different than being told "stop doing that" by the dispatcher. A minor point, but worth repeating.

I've pointed this out before, but I will again:

911 operators are not cops. You do NOT have to follow their orders.

They can only make suggestions, it is not illegal to disobey them.