Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.
Options
Comments
-
So this is (unfortunately) a thing
http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/
Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.
You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.
* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:0 -
So this is (unfortunately) a thing
http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/
Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.
You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.
* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:
....she's on about the poxy lift again.....0 -
....she's on about the poxy lift again.....
I think she is in pre-emptive defence mode because Questlove's article happened to detail a situation very similar to what she as complaining about (by coincidence, I imagine Questlove has no freaking idea who Rebecca Watson is), while pointing out the inherent bigotry in assuming that the man with you is a criminal.0 -
History could have been so different, with just one little difference:....she's on about the poxy lift again.....
0 -
So this is (unfortunately) a thing
http://skepchick.org/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-not-being-****/
Watson seems oblivious that it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place, and the view of the white female jury that Zimmerman was just protecting the population from a black man up to no good. One wonders what would have been the reaction from a lot of these blogs if Zimmerman had actually been a woman? It was also a fear of rape that it seems lead Martin to attack Zimmerman, rather than simply frustration at being stalked. Martin seemed to believe he himself was about to be raped. Because after all men are probably rapists.
You cannot contribute to a level of criminal suspicion of men and then fain surprise when society at all levels, from Martin to Zimmerman to the women on the jury fall into default mode of viewing a man out and about as nothing more than a likely criminal or rapist.
* it would be remiss to not mention the veiled racist/sexist comment at the start of the article where Watson feels compelled to compliment Questlove on producing a " thoughtful and well-written essay" article. Cause you know he is a man and black so he should get a gold star from a white woman for being able to write properly and have considered opinions about something. :rolleyes:
I'd say she choose to frame the Zimmerman verdict as making it legal to "..hunt down a black teen and kill him because he was seen as a threat." very deliberately.
Framing it as something terrible like hunting down and murdering a teenage boy with a bag of skittles just because he was black allows her to avoid the uncomfortable question of whether racial profiling may be justified in some contexts, just as she believes gender/strength profiling is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious? It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?
Also -it was the hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime, that lead to Zimmerman "patrolling" his neighbourhood in the first place
Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?0 -
OpheliaBenson wrote: »Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?
You are correct, as anyone who followed the trial as opposed to the trial by media would know. It is an unfortunate aspect of life in the US that the media can conduct a trial and convict someone, in advance of the real trial, including inventing or distorting evidence to create their version of what happened. The portrayal of Zimmerman by the media before the case went to trial was a disgrace.
The Zimmerman case is a tragedy, especially for the young man who was killed. However, all the evidence, including ironically the evidence presented by the prosecution, supported Zimmerman's version of events. Not that he was blameless, but he was the one attacked physically and acted in self defense. It is unfortunate in my view that what was a tragic event is being used to further political agendas, including most disappointingly by the President.0 -
OpheliaBenson wrote: »Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious? It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?
Also -
Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?
Ophelia you have a habit of popping on to this forum, requesting clarifications and justifications and then ignoring responses and disappearing again for weeks on end.
Are you really interested in my reply, or is your post merely rhetorical?0 -
Zombrex, no I don't have a "habit" of doing that. I read the responses last time I commented here, and replied when a reply seemed called for, and not when one didn't.
I realize this is a clubhouse for regulars, but on the other hand you've been talking about me on this thread, so I don't think it's terribly intrusive of me to comment now and then, especially since most of what I see about me is factually wrong.0 -
OpheliaBenson wrote: »Zombrex, no I don't have a "habit" of doing that. I read the responses last time I commented here, and replied when a reply seemed called for, and not when one didn't.
I realize this is a clubhouse for regulars, but on the other hand you've been talking about me on this thread, so I don't think it's terribly intrusive of me to comment now and then, especially since most of what I see about me is factually wrong.
This is a "clubhouse" for people interested in discussion and debate. It isn't a clubhouse for what is known as "hit and runs", which we get a fair amount of on this forum, where posters pop in to make a point disguised as a request for information or clarification or discussion, and by the time people have bothered to formulate a considered reply the poster has disappeared again.
I will take you on face value that you are genuinely interested in my reply.OpheliaBenson wrote: »Oblivious? Really? You think Rebecca is oblivious?
I think Watson is oblivious to this point, yes.OpheliaBenson wrote: »It's what the post is about, so in what sense is she oblivious?
It is not what the post is about. Throughout the post Watson compares the sexual objectification of women with racism black males face when they are stereotyped.
"In the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal, would a black man have a similar threat evaluation about a white man following him late at night? “Can this person overpower me? Is this person viewing me as a racist caricature?”
Sexual objectification and racist stereotyping both lead to the dehumanization of marginalized people that Questlove accurately describes as feeling that you ain’t ****."
Watson is casting women as being in the comparative role as Trayvon Martin or Questlove, victims of stereotypes and bigotry.
What she isn't considering is the effect that the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders has in creating that stereotype in the first place.OpheliaBenson wrote: »Was it? You know that? I thought it was fears about property crimes and break-ins (which can inspire fear in men as well as women) rather than "male sexual crime." Do you have a source for the latter claim?
I have read various news reports that claim that Zimmerman and his neighbourhood became particularly fearful of burglaries and break-ins after a number of break-ins had taken place with women alone in the houses, and this lead to Zimmerman's decision that something must be done.
As one blogger put it
"So when George Zimmerman assumed, based on appearance that Trayvon was a criminal, a big part of why he assumed it was this history of Black boys and men being considered threats to white women. Sadly, though it’s been nearly sixty years, the twisted logic that made Emmett Till’s life worthless and let his murders go free has done the same to Trayvon."
http://www.blogher.com/not-my-name-or-whiteness-goddam0 -
Advertisement
-
Ophelia you have a habit of popping on to this forum, requesting clarifications and justifications and then ignoring responses and disappearing again for weeks on end.
Are you really interested in my reply, or is your post merely rhetorical?I will take you on face value that you are genuinely interested in my reply.
If you suspect a poster isn't being genuine or playing fair report the post(s). Do NOT make accusations to the poster in thread!
Thanks0 -
This is a "clubhouse" for people interested in discussion and debate. It isn't a clubhouse for what is known as "hit and runs", which we get a fair amount of on this forum, where posters pop in to make a point disguised as a request for information or clarification or discussion, and by the time people have bothered to formulate a considered reply the poster has disappeared again.
Meaning what? People are required to reply to every reply? Or what?What she isn't considering is the effect that the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders has in creating that stereotype in the first place.
That's probably because there is no such thing. There's no generalized "demonisation of men as perpetual sex offenders."I have read various news reports that claim that Zimmerman and his neighbourhood became particularly fearful of burglaries and break-ins after a number of break-ins had taken place with women alone in the houses, and this lead to Zimmerman's decision that something must be done.
Right. That's what I said. Not sex crimes, but property crimes and break-ins. So you got that bit wrong, in your eagerness to pin some random accusation on Rebecca. Not very scrupulous, or even very rational.0 -
OpheliaBenson wrote: »Meaning what? People are required to reply to every reply? Or what?
No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.
Yes there is, the stereotype of the male predator, particularly the black male sexual predator, is well engrained in society Western society.OpheliaBenson wrote: »That's probably because there is no such thing. There's no generalized "demonisation of men as perpetual sex offenders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_brute
This is an example of the modern phenomena around the India gang rapes, which touches on the general phenomena at the end of the piece.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100196384/the-delhi-rape-is-being-used-to-demonise-indian-men/
"A handful of observers have challenged the sweeping demonisation of India and its people in the wake of the Delhi rape – but strikingly they have done so on the basis that we in the West are just as rapacious as the "hyena-like" men of the subcontinent. In the past, progressives would have critiqued the heaping of collective guilt on to foreign nations on the basis that it was inhumane and inaccurate; now they critique it on the basis that rape is not just "a cultural phenomenon in India", but is "endemic everywhere", with verbal or violent misogyny "happening all around us", including in civilised countries like Britain. In other words, it isn't just Indian men who are hyenas – all men are. This is one of the most shocking things about the Delhi rape case – the fact that so many observers aren't especially shocked by it, either because they expect animalistic Indian men to behave like this, or because they view all men, if not all of humanity itself, as capable of such despicable evil."OpheliaBenson wrote: »Right. That's what I said. Not sex crimes, but property crimes and break-ins.
The situation escalated when the threat of these women being assaulted in their homes was raised. This prompted Zimmerman to take it upon himself to start patrolling the neighbourhood.
After all what is a man, particularly a black man, to do with a woman alone in a house other than rape her, right?0 -
No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.
Why are you giving me orders? Why are you telling me under what conditions to ask another poster questions? I get that you're an insider here and I'm an outsider, but I don't get why you're bossing me around. I'll ask questions as I want to, until/unless someone bans me. I don't need your permission or instructions. As far as I can see you're not even a mod, you're just bossy.the stereotype of the male predator, particularly the black male sexual predator, is well engrained in society Western society.
Yes, and I didn't say otherwise, but that's not the same as "the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders." Very few people claim that all men are sexual predators.The situation escalated when the threat of these women being assaulted in their homes was raised. This prompted Zimmerman to take it upon himself to start patrolling the neighbourhood.
Assaulted, yes - I said that - break-ins are threatening to both sexes. That's not the same as "hysteria about male sexual crime, particularly black male sexual crime," which is what you said was the issue.0 -
No, meaning only ask another poster questions if you are genuinely interested in their reply.OpheliaBenson wrote: »Why are you giving me orders? Why are you telling me under what conditions to ask another poster questions? I get that you're an insider here and I'm an outsider, but I don't get why you're bossing me around. I'll ask questions as I want to, until/unless someone bans me. I don't need your permission or instructions. As far as I can see you're not even a mod, you're just bossy.
Please drop this aspect to the discussion. It's irrelevant and the civility of it isn't exactly heartening.0 -
OpheliaBenson wrote: »Yes, and I didn't say otherwise, but that's not the same as "the demonisation of men, particularly black men, as perpetual sex offenders." Very few people claim that all men are sexual predators.
It is the demonisation of men. It just isn't the overt demonisation of men. But then demonisation is rarely done overtly.
Very few people claim that all black men are criminals, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Those that do are normally dismissed as right wing loons. It might get you a job on a talk radio but that is about it. But a far higher percentage of people participate in the demonisation of stereotyped groups by rationalising a fear of them based on a perception of a high likelihood that they are going to participate in this behaviour.
So you get people saying things like "I'm not saying that all black people are criminals, but you can't ignore the fact that 1 in 3 black people spend time in prison" or "I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but you can't ignore the fact that violent aggression has been part of Islamic tradition for centuries"
This is an attempt to rationalise the prejudice, make it sound like a reasonable conclusion to make rather than a stereotyping of an individual.
And the same thing is found in how society address males and the crime of rape. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but men are raised in a rape culture that teaches men that raping a woman is acceptable. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but in a patriarchal society women are viewed as little more than sexual objects to taken at will. I'm not saying all men are rapists, but you cannot ignore that a large number of men admit to raping women if you call it something other than rape. etc etc
I don't know why you keep making that point since no one ever claimed break-ins were not threatening to both sexes, nor has anyone taken Zimmerman's side that he had a rational reason to be fearful and start patrolling the neighbourhood.OpheliaBenson wrote: »Assaulted, yes - I said that - break-ins are threatening to both sexes.
The point is that Zimmerman didn't start patrolling the neighbourhood with a loaded weapon until the threat of women specifically being assaulted in their homes was raised by his neighbours. If you want to believe that has nothing to do with the black brute stereotype go ahead, I think that is a very naive position to take.0 -
"So when George Zimmerman assumed, based on appearance that Trayvon was a criminal, a big part of why he assumed it was this history of Black boys and men being considered threats to white women. Sadly, though it’s been nearly sixty years, the twisted logic that made Emmett Till’s life worthless and let his murders go free has done the same to Trayvon."
http://www.blogher.com/not-my-name-or-whiteness-goddam
That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.
Impressive, shame she wasn't on the jury!0 -
That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.
Impressive, shame she wasn't on the jury!
The volume of horse manure written about this case in the media and by bloggers is simply mind blowing, the level of stupidity involved is only exceeded by people who believe what they read and use the case to further their social or political opinions or agendas.
The facts of the case as reported in the courtroom are as follows:
1. A neighborhood watch group was set up in this gated community due to at least 8 break ins / robberies over the prior year. Zimmerman was chosen as the leader by the group.
2. On the night in question he was driving to the store and noticed someone that he thought was acting suspiciously. He called 911 and got out of his vehicle and tried to follow Martin, but lost him (a mistake but not a crime). He was asked by dispatch what race the person was, he never mentioned race up to this point. Contrary to reports, there was no instruction by dispatch to not follow Martin, he was given the standard answer "we don't need you to do that". Dispatch never give specific instructions as they can be held liable if something goes wrong. These are dispatchers on the phone, not police. The jury (interviewed afterwards) did not believe race played any part in this tragic case.
3. While going back to his vehicle he was confronted by Martin (who had told his friend on the phone he was already back at his house, but clearly had doubled back as the confrontation happened much closer to Zimmerman's vehicle than the house Martin was staying at) who punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, and then proceeded to slam his head repeated into the concrete. This was collaborated by two witnesses, ironically prosecution witnesses, and by the injuries to Zimmerman. Zimmerman pulled his legally carried gun and shot Martin as he felt his life was in imminent danger.
4. Zimmerman was questioned for 5 hours by the police and they determined he had acted in self defense. During the questioning Zimmerman was told by police they had a CCTV of the whole incident (untrue) and he answered "Thank God". Why would he say this if his account was a lie?
This case was entirely based on media hysteria and trial by media. From the beginning the media wanted a white man unjustly killed a black kid story. When it transpired that Zimmerman was Hispanic they then referred to him as a "white Hispanic". It is a tragic case with a tragic outcome and there is no question both involved appeared to use poor judgment, but there is also zero evidence that Zimmerman was racially motivated or intended to inflict any harm until attacked and beaten viciously. The initial prosecutor believed it was self defense and that he could never secure even a manslaughter conviction, he was removed from the case and an overzealous new prosecutor totally overreached by going for 2nd degree murder. If she had gone for manslaughter she might have had a small but unlikely chance of a conviction.
The media and the blogger community have a lot to answer for in stirring up racial tension surrounding this case. The average person has no clue as to the actual facts of the case, they only remember what was initially reported by the media which was sensationalism at best and outright lies at worst. Absolutely shameful but unfortunately typical of an American media abusing their freedom of speech rights without any concern for the results of their actions. Zimmerman is suing NBC for their part in portraying him as a racist and I predict will win a large settlement.0 -
2. On the night in question he was driving to the store and noticed someone that he thought was acting suspiciously.
Martin was walking home from the shops to his girlfriend's father's house. This prompted Zimmerman to tell the police
"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
What as Martin doing that made him look "up to no good"?
Zimmerman said he was "looking at all the houses". There is no evidence Martin was doing anything other than walking through the neighbourhood.
How can you say race had nothing to do with it when Zimmerman sees a kid walking through the neighbourhood and jumps to the conclusion that he is there to rob houses and is on drugs?0 -
That blogger must have amazing psychic abilities to delve so deeply into the thoughts and motives of George Zimmerman.
You say that as if the thoughts of Geroge Zimmerman were complex and nuanced.
Rather than here is a black kid coming to rob our stuff and rape our women, I better do something.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
DapperGent wrote: »You quite genuinely have no basis for intimating this.
What was Trayvon Martin doing other than being black that made him suspicious in the eyes of Zimmerman?0 -
Zimmerman's position is that he saw Trayvon Martin's behavior as being consistent with scouting for opportunities to commit burglaries (there having been a number recently in the area). It is your position that the critical factor for arousing this suspicion in Zimmerman was Trayvon Martin's race, which you are unable to justify. In addition you infer that Zimmerman's state of mind upon following Trayvon Martin included a suspicion that this person was a likely perpetrator of violent sexual assault based again on the his race, this you are also unable to justify even speculatively.What was Trayvon Martin doing other than being black that made him suspicious in the eyes of Zimmerman?
Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused. Ridiculously you also seem to me to claim that Zimmerman would reserve an additional suspicion that he was dealing with a potential rapist solely for black teenagers.
Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?0 -
There is no evidence that Martin was doing any of those things. There is no evidence that he was there to rob, there is no evidence he was scoping houses, there is no evidence he was there to peruse any criminal activity. The only evidence there is is that he was walking through the neighbourhood minding his own business until he caught the attention of Zimmerman.DapperGent wrote: »Zimmerman's position is that he saw Trayvon Martin's behavior as being consistent with scouting for opportunities to commit burglaries (there having been a number recently in the area).
It is justified by Martin not doing anything to arouse suspicion other than walking through Zimmerman's neighbour while being black.DapperGent wrote: »It is your position that the critical factor for arousing this suspicion in Zimmerman was Trayvon Martin's race, which you are unable to justify.DapperGent wrote: »In addition you infer that Zimmerman's state of mind upon following Trayvon Martin included a suspicion that this person was a likely perpetrator of violent sexual assault based again on the his race, this you are also unable to justify even speculatively.
I already did justify this, read my reply to Ophelia.DapperGent wrote: »Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused.
Yes, because Martin was doing nothing more than walking through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. Zimmerman passed other people walking through his neighbourhood and didn't decide to chase them down with a gunDapperGent wrote: »Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?
What you mean other than he automatically assumed that a black man walking through his neighbourhood was a criminal high on drugs and out to rob the neighbourhood?
There are a witness that says Zimmerman and his family often made racist and derogatory comments about black people, so I'm not sure where you are getting the "quite the opposite" claim from?0 -
-
DapperGent wrote: »Your position is that if Zimmerman had seen a white or hispanic or asian teenager acting in exactly the same manner as Trayvon Martin at the same time then his suspicion (paranoia?) would likely not have been aroused. Ridiculously you also seem to me to claim that Zimmerman would reserve an additional suspicion that he was dealing with a potential rapist solely for black teenagers.
Why do you maintain that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior (in fact quite the opposite) could only act in this (imo reckless, idiotic) way towards a black person? For what reason do you suggest that this man you do not know, who has no history of racist behavior, views black men as uniquely prone to commit sexual assault?
You are wasting your time DapperGent as there are those on the extreme left who have decided this is a race case and nothing will deter them. We had a perfect example a few days again in Houston at a pro Zimmerman rally. A white woman held up a sign that said "We're racist and we're proud" and sections of the media ran with this as evidence of racism among Zimmerman supporters. Then the facts (again those darn facts) emerged that she was a counter demonstrator and her sign was directed at the pro Zimmerman crowd.
Anyone who followed this trial would know that the claim that Zimmerman was a racist is completely unsubstantiated. The FBI who interviewed 3 dozen people who knew Zimmerman concluded he may have had "little hero syndrome" but was not racist. Prior calls to 911 reporting potential burglars (in a community that had lots of them) who happened to be black is not racism, your family making racist remarks does not make you racist. That Zimmerman acted foolishly, even recklessly and overzealously and that precipitated an incident that led to a young man's death is unquestioned. That was not enough to convict him beyond reasonable doubt of even manslaughter in the eyes of the jury.0 -
I do not state that Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglaries, I think it's extremely unlikely that he was.There is no evidence that Martin was doing any of those things. There is no evidence that he was there to rob, there is no evidence he was scoping houses, there is no evidence he was there to peruse any criminal activity. The only evidence there is is that he was walking through the neighbourhood minding his own business until he caught the attention of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman maintains that he was suspicious because: 1. There had been a number of previous burglaries. 2. He didn't know Martin. 3. He thought Martin was wandering around looking in houses and not going anywhere in particular. 4. He though Martin seemed intoxicated.
There is no evidence that any of this is true nor is there any evidence that Zimmerman considered Martin suspicious due to his race. You make an unfounded presumption that Zimmerman's main (only?) reason for calling the police was Martin's race. I do not know what you base this on. A fifth of the families in the community were black, Zimmerman can't have been calling in every black person he didn't know.
The crux of the case is Zimmerman's state of mind. He maintains he followed Martin because he thought he was suspicious (almost certainly unreasonably in my view). You maintain he followed Martin because he was black on the basis of nothing other than the fact that Martin was black. You need some form of evidence to hold this view, there is none. I'm not saying I believe Zimmerman I'm saying there's no evidence to consider him a racist.
You simply do not know this. This directly conflicts with Zimmerman's explanation of his behavior, why do you consider it impossible that Zimmerman genuinely thought that Martin was a potential burglar and that this thought was not racially motivated?It is justified by Martin not doing anything to arouse suspicion other than walking through Zimmerman's neighbour while being black.
You state that:I already did justify this, read my reply to Ophelia.
"The point is that Zimmerman didn't start patrolling the neighbourhood with a loaded weapon until the threat of women specifically being assaulted in their homes was raised by his neighbours. If you want to believe that has nothing to do with the black brute stereotype go ahead, I think that is a very naive position to take. "
So Zimmerman's guilt is somewhat established by volunteering for a neighbourhood watch after a spate of burglaries? Seriously? You also intimate a propensity for vigilantism based on nothing and you again seem to me to quite definitively state that Zimmerman believed black men to be more prone to engage in assaults of a sexual nature. For what reason are you sure Zimmerman believed this?
He says he passed other people by because they did not strike him as suspicious. You say he passed them by because they were not black. What are your reasons for saying this? He doesn't appear to have chased him down but to have called the police right away and to have followed him slowly.Yes, because Martin was doing nothing more than walking through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. Zimmerman passed other people walking through his neighbourhood and didn't decide to chase them down with a gun
Again he says he became suspicious for reasons other than race. We may both consider these suspicions to be unreasonable. Calling him a racist also seems unreasonable. Many people who attempt to defend Zimmerman bring in aspects of Trayvon Martin's character which are irrelevant at best and dog-whistle racism at worst. What is relevant is whether Zimmerman had honestly held suspicions not based on race, I don't know whether he did or not but nor do I see any evidence to the contrary.What you mean other than he automatically assumed that a black man walking through his neighbourhood was a criminal high on drugs and out to rob the neighbourhood?
These were not raised at trial, could you source this claim please?There are a witness that says Zimmerman and his family often made racist and derogatory comments about black people, so I'm not sure where you are getting the "quite the opposite" claim from?
I think this case has been badly used by a lot of people to shoehorn in their own agendas into a tragedy. Rebecca Watson did it in the piece you linked and you are also doing it now.
There's also been a couple of really quite despicable pieces in the paper I read every day:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/zimmerman-verdict-message
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-boys-verdict
The facts of the case are:
1. Zimmerman was suspicious enough of Martin to call the police.
2. He followed him despite being discouraged from doing so by the dispatcher.
3. He exited his vehicle while carrying a concealed weapon so that he could follow a stranger he considered dangerous in the dark. Like an utter moron.
4. Someone beat the crap out of him.
5. He killed Trayvon Martin.
For me this highlights the insanity of America's gun laws more than anything else, in my opinion the recklessness of Zimmerman's actions should be illegal (i.e. concealed carrying following a stranger in the dark) but they're not. In my opinion carrying a gun for personal defence should be illegal but it isn't. If you make it legal to defend yourself with a concealed gun, then you need to show that the situation was engineered in such a way as to leave one party beaten and the other dead, there's just no evidence no evidence at all to show that that was the case.0 -
Excellent post.0
-
DapperGent wrote: »I do not state that Trayvon Martin was casing houses for burglaries, I think it's extremely unlikely that he was.
Zimmerman maintains that he was suspicious because: 1. There had been a number of previous burglaries. 2. He didn't know Martin. 3. He thought Martin was wandering around looking in houses and not going anywhere in particular. 4. He though Martin seemed intoxicated.
1 and 2 are irrelevant, 3 is unlikely to be true and 4 isn't true.
So you have a boy walking down a street doing nothing other than walking down a street and Zimmerman singles him out as being "suspicious".
Given there is no evidence Martin gave him reason to find him suspicious, and given Zimmerman's concern about black males, it seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black.
You keep saying there is no evidence for this. There is no evidence if you will only accept Zimmerman saying "Black people are criminals".DapperGent wrote: »A fifth of the families in the community were black, Zimmerman can't have been calling in every black person he didn't know.
Zimmerman made 5 calls to the police in the year leading up to the shooting (out of the 46 calls he had made in the previous 10 years), to report black males to the police.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html
None of the reports were reporting white males other than one report from a few years ago to report 2 Hispanics and a white male having a pool party.DapperGent wrote: »The crux of the case is Zimmerman's state of mind. He maintains he followed Martin because he thought he was suspicious (almost certainly unreasonably in my view).
You say it is unreasonable but you don't seem to want to consider why Zimmerman picked Martin.DapperGent wrote: »You simply do not know this. This directly conflicts with Zimmerman's explanation of his behavior, why do you consider it impossible that Zimmerman genuinely thought that Martin was a potential burglar and that this thought was not racially motivated?
I don't consider it impossible, I consider it extremely unlikely. There is no evidence Martin was doing anything other than walking home. There is no evidence Martin was a burglerer or had any intention of robbing any of the houses. There is no evidence that Martin was looking into any of the houses.
There is evidence that Zimmerman was deeply suspicious of black males in his neighbour. There is evidence that Zimmerman believes, for apparently no reason, that Martin was both intoxicated and there to rob houses.DapperGent wrote: »So Zimmerman's guilt is somewhat established by volunteering for a neighbourhood watch after a spate of burglaries? Seriously? You also intimate a propensity for vigilantism based on nothing and you again seem to me to quite definitively state that Zimmerman believed black men to be more prone to engage in assaults of a sexual nature. For what reason are you sure Zimmerman believed this?
I'm not sure Zimmerman believed this. I think it highly likely he believed this based on the pattern of his behaviour.DapperGent wrote: »He says he passed other people by because they did not strike him as suspicious. You say he passed them by because they were not black. What are your reasons for saying this? He doesn't appear to have chased him down but to have called the police right away and to have followed him slowly.
Zimmerman claimed Martin ran away, and Zimmerman followed him. Martin reported to his friend on his phone that a man was following him, but he thought he got away. He then let out an explicative when he found out that Zimmerman had caught up to him. Martin is reported to have shouted "Get off! Get off!" down the phone before the phone went dead.DapperGent wrote: »Again he says he became suspicious for reasons other than race. We may both consider these suspicions to be unreasonable. Calling him a racist also seems unreasonable.
I'm really not following this. You say his reasons were unreasonable, but you say there is no evidence he was racially profiling Martin. Ok, what were these unreasonable reasons?DapperGent wrote: »These were not raised at trial, could you source this claim please?
The defence successfully squashed the testimony under the argument that it was not relevant to the charges Zimmerman faced.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225435/-The-Racism-of-the-Zimmerman-FamilyDapperGent wrote: »The facts of the case are:
1. Zimmerman was suspicious enough of Martin to call the police.
2. He followed him despite being discouraged from doing so by the dispatcher.
3. He exited his vehicle while carrying a concealed weapon so that he could follow a stranger he considered dangerous in the dark. Like an utter moron.
4. Someone beat the crap out of him.
5. He killed Trayvon Martin.
Why was he suspicious enough of Martin to call the police? Martin hadn't done anything other than walk through a neighbourhood. Given Zimmerman had a history of identify black males as suspicious, and given that he singled out Martin for no apparent reason.
1 A witness claims that Zimmerman's family held negative stereotypical view of black people, particularly poor black people
2 A witness claims that Zimmerman harassed him at work with racist and derogatory language, making jokes about him being a terrorist
3 Zimmerman repeatably called a police hotline to make reports about suspicious black males in his neighbourhood
4 Trayvon Martin was walking home through Zimmerman's neighbourhood. There is no evidence he was doing or planning any criminal activity, nor that he was drunk, nor that he was looking in houses.
5 Zimmerman singled him out as looking "up to no good" and followed him, catching up to him after Martin ran away.
6 Martin is reported to have expressed fear that Zimmerman was stalking him, and is reported to have shouted "Get off, get off"
7 Witnesses have that the screams on the police call made to report the fight were Martin's and that they stopped cold once the gun had gone off.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zombrex, I know absolutely nothing of this case and from reading your posts I've seen nothing to even indicate that it was racial thinking or racial profiling by Zimmerman. Just thought I'd let you know. If you're trying to make a point it isn't really coming across too well.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6QBoDPw9U
Advertisement