|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 9, 2013 0:06:43 GMT
The kids weren't enlisted because they were already smoking pot they got at school. We're putting an end to that in WA where we've legalized and regulated the recreational use of marijuana. We're still in transition though and the full implementation won't occur until January 2014. Of course the feds can still screw this up but at least we're trying to take marijuana out of our schools by regulating the sale to adults. So what you are saying is that the adults are the reason Wa. has marijuana in school.. hmmm. How does the legal sale of marijuana keep it out of schools? If the schools have it now, it will be more prevalent after the prohibition is lifted. So good luck with that thought on taking it out of schools. Maybe the parents weren't enlisting but contributing to the delinquency of minors. That is not what I stated. I stated that because it is an unregulated black market commodity that there are no "age limits" for the sale of marijuana so schools become a primary source of distribution because there are a lot of "customers" in the schools. By allowing legal production and distribution it cuts off the supply to the schools because it closes down much of the black market. Will some distribution still occur in schools? Of course but because the "black market" of production becomes a legal source of production it's much harder for the "school" black market to secure the product. Abusiness man isn't going to sell marijuana to underage people but a "drug dealer" doesn't care. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 10, 2013 22:08:15 GMT
The OP is not in the slightest related to the "war on drugs." So, you've gone way off-topic. Please go back and re-read the OP and the link.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 10, 2013 22:12:01 GMT
Are we supposed to be outraged because it black on white violence because that's how the incident is framed, or because the victim was outnumbered, or because the sneak got what was coming to him, according to playground rules? |
|
|
|
Post by truthvigilante on Aug 11, 2013 4:43:37 GMT
These issues should be about justice, not conjuring up racism, from whatever side of the fence you sit. In the instance of Trayvon Martin I thought the protests and outrage was a case of an historical justice system continuing to seemingly fail black Americans(I'm from Australia, just so you take it easy on me...lol). If this young man on the bus cannot get justice for what occurred, he has every right to jump up and down and should have the support of black and white in doing so IMO.
If the Trayvon Martin case was a clear injustice, then all people, red, black, yellow and white should have been jumping up and down together. Racism is tricky to prove, especially if it's covert, but you can no doubt gain clues from certain patterns established in organisations and people. It wouldn't be legal evidence but it is a clear indication to the open mind "IMO".
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 11, 2013 13:05:47 GMT
The OP is not in the slightest related to the "war on drugs." So, you've gone way off-topic. Please go back and re-read the OP and the link.
Thanks
It had absolutely nothing to do with race and the race of the perpetrators and victim should have been omitted from the news story completely because it was unrelated to the crime. The actual news story should have been recorded as follows:
I agree that there should be a national conversation on the violence related to the drug prohibition laws that create a culture of violence but this has nothing to do with race unless we also want to address the racial prejudice of law enforcement and our criminal justice system related to the War on Drugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Aug 11, 2013 15:05:38 GMT
Are we supposed to be outraged because it black on white violence because that's how the incident is framed, or because the victim was outnumbered, or because the sneak got what was coming to him, according to playground rules? Nothing to do with lords, or indeed the colour of the participants, no matter how much some might want it to be. Unless the kid was attacked because of the colour of his skin, and there's no evidence to support that claim, then his snitching got him a beating from three friends he snitched on... They've been charged with the assault, and the law will deal with them. Racist pot-stirrers want to make more of it than it is. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 11, 2013 15:45:00 GMT
Are you serious??? ....'the sneak got what was coming to him?" Good Lord!! Nothing to do with lords, or indeed the colour of the participants, no matter how much some might want it to be. Unless the kid was attacked because of the colour of his skin, and there's no evidence to support that claim, then his snitching got him a beating from three friends he snitched on... They've been charged with the assault, and the law will deal with them. Racist pot-stirrers want to make more of it than it is. That's a bit like saying that a homosexual deserves to be beat up because he came onto a couple of heterosexuals in a bar. This boy.....who wasn't "friends" with them BTW, did what he was supposed to do: he turned in older kids in his school who are trafficking drugs to other kids, including trying to sell him drugs. You are trying to make the victim the bad person here. And as long as you argued the same thing during the Zimmerman issue......then I would applaud you for consistency. I will take your comments as an agreement then with me.....that the race baiters Al Sharpton, etc......have no business injecting race when that case had nothing to do with race. My OP is about consistency....and not picking and choosing which particular cases one WANTS to make into a racial issue, depending on who the victim is. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 11, 2013 15:49:08 GMT
These issues should be about justice, not conjuring up racism, from whatever side of the fence you sit. In the instance of Trayvon Martin I thought the protests and outrage was a case of an historical justice system continuing to seemingly fail black Americans(I'm from Australia, just so you take it easy on me...lol). If this young man on the bus cannot get justice for what occurred, he has every right to jump up and down and should have the support of black and white in doing so IMO. If the Trayvon Martin case was a clear injustice, then all people, red, black, yellow and white should have been jumping up and down together. Racism is tricky to prove, especially if it's covert, but you can no doubt gain clues from certain patterns established in organisations and people. It wouldn't be legal evidence but it is a clear indication to the open mind "IMO". We'll see what they get. I'm going to say it will be a slap on the wrist for what they did. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 11, 2013 16:19:34 GMT
The fact remains that this was a relatively simple case of assault and battery apparently motivated by the illicit trade in drugs that had absolutely nothing to do with race. The interjection of "racial criteria" in the news story simply reflects racism by the news source (reporter) as it had no bearing or relevance to the story.
If anyone wants to abject to what is occuring the interjection of racism into the news story is actually worse than the actual crime itself. That is not to imply any less sympathy for the victim of what was a brutal attack but stories like these feed racial bigotry, stereotyping, and racial prejudice that is a far greater problem in society than simple assault and battery.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 11, 2013 18:35:51 GMT
Again.....you continue to miss the point of the OP. I've restated it now at least a couple of times. It's obvious you don't WANT to get it....
Have you got anything to say about how Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and liberal news media/press injects race into "certain" cases......but not others?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 11, 2013 19:12:39 GMT
Again.....you continue to miss the point of the OP. I've restated it now at least a couple of times. It's obvious you don't WANT to get it....
Have you got anything to say about how Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and liberal news media/press injects race into "certain" cases......but not others?
Who didn't see it? Typically "whites with conservative political ideologies" that also represent the largest group of individuals with racial prejudice. They don't see it because of their own racial prejudice.
The person most likely to see racial prejudice and discrimination is someone that has been subjected to it their entire lifetime. It's harder for those of us that have not been subjected to it to see it. There is a possibility that Zimmerman could face a federal civil rights indictment and prosecution and, from my perspective, the only people that should be on the jury are those than have been subjected to this racial prejudice because they are "informed" and understand it.
If a "white" jury was assigned it would be like having blind people judge a painting contest. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 12, 2013 2:18:32 GMT
Again.....you continue to miss the point of the OP. I've restated it now at least a couple of times. It's obvious you don't WANT to get it....
Have you got anything to say about how Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and liberal news media/press injects race into "certain" cases......but not others?
Who didn't see it? Typically "whites with conservative political ideologies" that also represent the largest group of individuals with racial prejudice. They don't see it because of their own racial prejudice.
The person most likely to see racial prejudice and discrimination is someone that has been subjected to it their entire lifetime. It's harder for those of us that have not been subjected to it to see it. There is a possibility that Zimmerman could face a federal civil rights indictment and prosecution and, from my perspective, the only people that should be on the jury are those than have been subjected to this racial prejudice because they are "informed" and understand it.
If a "white" jury was assigned it would be like having blind people judge a painting contest. So.....Zimmerman was asked by the dispatcher for a description. Are you telling me he should not have mentioned that he thought the guy was black?  ? Seriously? IF you witnessed a black teenager coming out of a 7-11 just after they had robbed and shot a clerk........and the police was getting a description from you.....are you seriously NOT going to tell the police it was a black teenager? IF your neighborhood had been experiencing break-ins by young blacks and you are on the neighborhood watch...and you see a young black that you don't recognize walking closely to houses late at night......are you seriously going to just walk on and pay no attention? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 12, 2013 9:37:16 GMT
Here's where the excuses for Zimmerman's actions break down.
Zimmerman had already observed that Martin was probably black before the dispatcher asked about it. As a neighborhood watch member he would have been taught that he should report any unknown people in the neighborhood and record information about them.
From the very first moment that Zimmerman saw Martin and believed him to be a young black teenager and based upon that he instantly assumed that Martin was on drugs, was acting suspiciously, and was up to "no good" (his first statement to the police dispatcher) and that was based upon a racial stereotype (i.e. young black teenagers do drugs and are criminals). We know for a fact that Martin was not on drugs, was not acting suspiciously (he was just walking home from the store), and had no criminal intent whatsoever that night.
Yes, there had been previous break-ins in the neighborhood and one black teenager had been arrested for at least one of them. That did not imply that all of the break-ins were committed by black teenagers and, for all anyone knows, the one black teenager previously arrested could have been responsible for all of the break-ins. Having been a member of a neighborhood watch we were taught that 99% of unknown persons in the neighborhood were there for completely legitimate reasons and that we should never assume otherwise.
After Zimmerman had confirmed (on his own) that Martin was a young black teenager he automatically assumed that Martin was in the neighborhood with nefarious criminal intent. His statement, "These ass holes always get away" referring to "black teenagers" in general, reflects the racial profiling. Zimmerman had tied together a racial stereotype (i.e. black teenagers do drugs and are criminals) to Martin.
Based upon the racial stereotype of black teenagers, where Zimmerman assumed that Martin was in the neighborhood for criminal purposes, Zimmerman began to follow Martin in direct contradiction to his neighborhood watch training. Not only did Zimmerman follow Martin in his truck he got out of his truck and followed Martin on foot knowing full well that this action could lead to a confrontation with Martin... and it eventually did.
This racial stereotyping isn't really any different than the fact that a young black person will often be followed in a store by the store clerks that assume that because they're a young black person they're in the store to shoplift. A white kid is virtually never followed based upon the assumption that they're in the store to shoplift but blacks often are and that is based upon racial stereotyping. People assume blacks are criminals and Zimmerman assumed that because Martin was a black teenager that he was in the neighborhood for criminal purposes.
This is racial profiling due to racial prejudice but, as I've stated, most "white conservatives" don't see it because of their own racial prejudice. They believe that Zimmerman's actions were justified when, in fact, they were based upon racial profiling and actually violated the neighborhood watch guidelines that specifically establish that a watch member is not a law enforcement officer and should never do anything that would lead to a confrontation where anyone would be placed in a dangerous situation.
Virtually every black person in American knows that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin that night because they've experienced this racial profiling themselves. They been followed in stores by the store clerks and they've been pulled over by police for "driving while black" so they know racial profiling and prejudice first hand but few "white conservatives" have ever experienced this and live in denial of it's existance.
Perhaps I was fortunate to have been a long haired hippie-freak in the late 1960's where I was profiled by people as being an "undesirable that was probably on drugs and was a criminal" because it taught me about profiling based upon a stereotype so I see the racial profiling of Martin where many other "whites" don't. Others that have never been subjected to profiling don't see it but those that have been subjected to profiling most certainly do. And I have to admit that the profiling of "long haird hippie-freaks" was never as invidious as the profiling of blacks in America.
What I'd ask "white conservatives" to do is realize that the whole black community that has been subjected to racial profiling throughout their entires lives can't be wrong. They know for a fact that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin that night based upon their own personal experiences of having been racially profiled themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 13, 2013 2:41:14 GMT
Probably is......you cannot just assume it's about race whenever someone is gets in trouble. That's kind of a built-in excuse, but it's certainly not always the case. Ever watch the tv program "Cops?" Are we to assume that police are racist everytime they stop a black person.....but they are not racists whenever they stop a white person? It's looks to me like they are going after criminals.....whatever race they are.
Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed Martin that night.....but he was trying to keep his distance and just keep up with where he was going so he could inform the police once they got there. And Martin certainly did not have any business backtracking and jumping Zimmerman and with a first punch broke his nose....then straddle him beating him MMA style (as described by a witness). That was excessive as well.....for someone who had not pulled a gun on him.....and someone who also had every right to be walking around in that neighborhood. Telling his girlfriend on the phone it was a "wild assed white cracker." That's racist.....and was a fact that the race baiters conveniently glossed over.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 13, 2013 9:31:09 GMT
First of all let's clarify that there is a distinct difference between racial prejudice that subconsciously affects a persons actions and a racist where the person consciously targets another person based upon racial criteria. Obviously there is also a gray area in between but for the most part people with racial prejudice are not racists although their prejudice does adversely affect black people. The police are generally not racists but crime statistics show that their actions are influenced by racial prejudice especially when we look at illegal drug criminal statistic where not just the police but our criminal justice system itself reflects extreme racial prejudice against African-Americans.
George Zimmerman is not a racist but he reflected extreme racial prejudice that night and it is contained in the phone transcript with the police dispatcher.
Then we see "white conservatives" trying to make excuses for Zimmerman's behavior and trying to justify his actions.
George Zimmerman, under any circumstances, should NOT have followed Trayvon Martin that night. It isn't a question of whether he "probably" shouldn't have followed Martin. He should NEVER have followed Martin and the neighborhood watch guidelines clearly establish this. Zimmerman following Martin was an "act of aggression" by Zimmerman against Martin. It was not "criminal assault" but it was still an act of aggression. The actions of Zimmerman represented a threat to Martin but because it was not an imminent threat it wasn't criminal assault.
Trayvon Martin did not turn around and try to track down Zimmerman. This is a fabrication. They lost sight of each other and when Martin headed back to where he was staying he re-established contact with Zimmerman that was heading back to his truck. When Martin accidently came into close proximity with Zimmerman now the previously established "threat" created by an act of aggression by Zimmerman the proximity established an "imminent threat" and Zimmerman was technically committing criminal assault at that time. Martin, under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law (and I disagree with SYG laws), was empowered to use physicaly force against Zimmerman to stop Zimmerman's act of aggression against him.
It can be noted that at the point where Martin and Zimmerman came into close proximity that Zimmerman had the opportunity to defuse the situation when Martin asked, "You got a problem with me?" by simply stating, "Neighborhood watch" but he didn't. Instead he made a rather wise-ass response that didn't defuse the situation. No real bearing on the legal case but it did reflect that Zimmerman is an idiot.
Finally the term MMA style attack is prejudicial in and of itself. This refers to the "ground and pound" technique in professional MMA matches that was not adopted from formal martial arts but instead it was adopted from street fighting. In short Martin engaged in a routine street fighting technique and not a professional martial art technique.
We can also note that street fights don't typically result in "serious bodily harm" which is far more than just a simple broken nose. Serious bodily harm refers to life threatening bodily harm and Zimmerman's life was not endangered by Martin that night. He suffered no serious injuries (a broken nose is not a serious injury) and he did not have cause to pull a concealed weapon (that he shouldn't have been carrying as a neighborhood watch member because it's not needed by a neighborhood watch member) and without any warning shot and killed Martin. He outweighed Martin by almost 100 lbs and could have easily have defended himself from any serious injury. Instead of defending himself he paniced, pulled a gun, and shot Martin.
People need to stop trying to make excuses for Zimmerman's actions. Zimmerman was wrong from the moment he assumed that a black teenager in the neighborhood was on drugs and there for nefarious criminal purposes and he had already assumed that by the time he made the phone call to the police. It is contained in his very first statement in the transcript.
We're now waiting to see of the DOJ believes it has enough evidence to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights and we need to understand the foundation for a civil rights prosecution. If the DOJ can establish that Zimmerman's actions were based upon racial prejudice and that resulted in Martin losing his life then there is grounds for prosecution and conviction even if every action of Zimmerman was "legal" under the laws of Florida.
The civil rights law are more about the first act of aggression based upon racial prejudice which was unquestionably, IMO, committed by Zimmerman by following Martin. The initial racial prejudice of Zimmerman eventually lead to the violation of the Right of Life of Martin and that violated Martin's civil rights. I believe the Fed's have a case and hope that they prosecute the case.
As a Libertarian I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and based upon the events that night it was Zimmerman that committed the first act of aggression in following Martin. It doesn't matter if this act of aggression was "legal" under the NAP and I judge the events of that night based upon it. I also looked for the motive and based upon the phone transcript I clearly see it was based upon racial prejudice probably driven by two factors. First is an overall stereotyping by our society that black teenagers do drugs and commit crimes and the fact that another black teenager had been arrested related to break-ins in the neighborhood. Martin was racially profiled by Zimmerman and it was probably because of the two factors I note. I do not look for excuses to rationalize Zimmerman's behavior but many "white conservatives" are trying to rationalize his behavior, going so far as to change the facts of the case, and we can see through that.
|
|
? Seriously?