Hate Crimes

[Mr. Perfect]

I have no problem with biases, I am as biased as the day is long, but I have no problem ferreting out hidden biases, or exposing people who ignore/distort facts because of their biases. I haven't seen you ignore/distort a fact because of any bias at this point.

[Mr. Perfect]

Interestingly, something that is quite a bit more clear cut doesn't become a national issue. Hmmm...

http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-Cal ... 86335.html

Seven black teens have been arrested on suspicion that they committed a hate crime when they attacked a 15-year-old Hispanic boy while he was walking home from school in Southern California, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office.

The March 14 beating in Palmdale was captured on video and posted on YouTube, but has since been removed from the site. The seven boys, ages 13 to 16, were arrested Wednesday for investigation of assault and committing a hate crime, Lt. Don Ford said.

The attack happened near Cactus Middle School, but Ford didn't know if any of the teens involved were students there.

The video shows as many as 10 boys surrounding the victim and challenging him to a fight. The suspects then began hitting the teen while others watched.

During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

The victim was able to get to his feet and escape the onslaught, and will need to undergo dental surgery.

The teens who were arrested were identified from the video, which was discovered by a Palmdale sheriff's deputy and has been retained for evidence. Authorities are not releasing the video.

Police are seeking three more suspects.

[Enki]

Hmm...is it racist when someone points out that black kids did something bad that has little in common with the case being discussed?

I mean what is there in common other than black people were involved and a teenage boy was killed?

Those boys were arrested for the crime. So why bring it up here? What could possibly compel someone to draw a link where it is so tenuous?

It's a hate crime, so it's appropriate to the thread. Why no one is up in arms about nationally is blindingly genuflecting obvious. No one in that case is saying that murder is peachy keen.

[cincinnatus]

Enki, you are wrong to claim there is only A. you're right (compassion for TM and family) and B. racist if you dare to ask if GZ is telling the truth. You really need to see a shrink for this Messaih complex of yours.

I for one thought for sure some white dude had killed a cute 12-year old "sweet boy" until the critiques of the media started hitting the airwaves, and that GZ had ID'd from the get-go that he was a suspicous "black" guy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... ml?hpid=z6

What, you mean that little kid didn't look like that when he was killed? What, he's not an angel in a hoodie who never did anything wrong? What, GZ is Hispanic? What, people are putting out hits on the shooter now? So, in this case, the media chose to editorially push a one-sided story that they saw as further evidene of the evil and racist nature of American (white) society. They give f-ing oxygen to the Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest by the obvious biased reporting. If they'd played it objectively from the start, sympathy would/should still be with the family of TM, with TM himself and still wondered what exactly he did that was "suspicous." Instead, people are being forced into their corners and told that there is no viable option C. BS and FY. None of that changes that an unarmed 17 year old was shot and killed. But casually tossing "murdered" about appears patently, well, biased at this point as more and more facts are hitting the public (good luck finding an impartial jury BTW). It reminds me FAR too much of the Duke Lacross case, in which "good" people had compassion for the poor gang-raped black woman and contempt for the spoiled white perps.

FWIW, I personally still think this was a case where TM could have feared for his life from some beefy tough looking Hispanic dude trailing him and chose to be macho and either engage in or start a fight, which strikes me as him choosing to "stand his ground" as much as GZ's spokesmen are saying he chose to stand his ground (because TM knew who he was...a scared 17-year old kid). But murder is not the right word to describe this. Negligent homicide would probably be a more fair description (as in GZ should have stayed in his f-ng vehicle as the 911 dispatched advised and not played Riggs from Lethal Weapon, and drawing a gun against an unarmed 17-year old?????????????? Regardless of circumstance?). As a gun-fan, it's A-holes like GZ who will take away my ability to carry a gun if I chose. Getting punched and (allegedly) having your head slammed to the ground shouldn't be enough to justify shooting to kill. Maybe if you're afraid to take a beating, a stun gun is a better concealed weapon to carry.

[Enki]

Yes, yes, Erek, I know your name as you know mine. Nor am I arguing compassion . . compassion, as I see it, is not what you're talking about. As for Jesus . . did he tolerate fools? Whom did Christ mean when He warned against casting pearls before pigs and giving what's holy to dogs?

But all that is immaterial to the fact that you dream yourself able to judge whether or not another person knows Christ. Hell, with that kind of complex, you got no trouble judging some poor sucker like Zimmerman.

Talk about dreaming the impossible dream . .

How have I judged Zimmerman other than saying he should be tried in court?

Mr. Perfect, he is a murderer, that's not even in question. We have a crime called 'homicide', self-defense falls under the category, 'justifiable homicide'. But it is still homicide.

A young unarmed boy was murdered, whether the circumstances are justified, or not, should be decided in court.

[Enki]

Enki, you are wrong to claim there is only A. you're right (compassion for TM and family) and B. racist if you dare to ask if GZ is telling the truth. You really need to see a shrink for this Messaih complex of yours.

Paraphrase me correctly if you're hoping for a response. I'm not going to play the game of, "That's not really what I said."

Feel free to compare what I said, "Zimmerman should be tried in court.", vs some of the other ideas, "Trayvon was suspended for marijuana possession."

[Mr. Perfect]

Hmm...is it racist when someone points out that black kids did something bad that has little in common with the case being discussed?

No.

I mean what is there in common other than black people were involved and a teenage boy was killed?

People have been claiming that Martin was targeted because of his race, and so we need a national conversation about race. Well this is much more clearly about race and so I wonder why we don't have a national conversation about race in this case.

Those boys were arrested for the crime. So why bring it up here? What could possibly compel someone to draw a link where it is so tenuous?

Why wouldn't we want to talk about a race crime? That is supposed to be the worst thing in the world. Here is a pretty clear race crime, shouldn't we be having a national conversation? Why wouldn't we?

It's a hate crime, so it's appropriate to the thread. Why no one is up in arms about nationally is blindingly genuflecting obvious. No one in that case is saying that murder is peachy keen.

No one has been convicted of murder yet, so there is no murder, or murderer. In the US, one is innocent until found guilty. Surely you don't need me to tell you about that.

[Mr. Perfect]

How have I judged Zimmerman other than saying he should be tried in court?

Mr. Perfect, he is a murderer, that's not even in question.

He is not a murderer. One has to be convicted of murder to be a murderer. In the US everybody is innocent until prove guilty under the law. You are deeply comfused or uninformed or are trying to run some sort of weird con.

We have a crime called 'homicide', self-defense falls under the category, 'justifiable homicide'. But it is still homicide.

None of this is yet decided. He may be absolved of any and all charges . In the US everyone is innocent until proven guilty. At present Zimmerman is innocent of any crime. That may or may not change.

A young unarmed boy was murdered,

I think your really misunderstand the vocabulary here.

whether the circumstances are justified, or not, should be decided in court.

Indeed.

[Demon of Undoing]

" Murder" is a judicial decision, not an act where one person kills another.

The label jumps the gun.

[cincinnatus]

Enki, you are wrong to claim there is only A. you're right (compassion for TM and family) and B. racist if you dare to ask if GZ is telling the truth. You really need to see a shrink for this Messaih complex of yours.

Paraphrase me correctly if you're hoping for a response. I'm not going to play the game of, "That's not really what I said."

Feel free to compare what I said, "Zimmerman should be tried in court.", vs some of the other ideas, "Trayvon was suspended for marijuana possession."

In your bias you said "compassion for Trevon" or "demonize Trevon." In my bias, I saw how you pained option B to match what you want your oponents to be. In my case, I don't see adding the context to who TM was (especially at the time) as racist, especially due to how incredibly biased the initial national reporting was (feel free to read the links I posted). I dare to wonder, giving both TM and GZ the benefit of the doubt in that both stories are 100% truth (TM walking from store to Dad's girlfriend's house with candy, the GZ was protecting his community and saw a stranger at night inside a gated community with the no-trespassing warnings), that TM still shouldn't have been shot. Even in the alleged "self-defense" mode that GZ claims.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I'm utterly mystified by Tinker (and other's) insistence that, if one person kills another, no matter what happens, that person should be charged with a crime and put in front of a jury. There are mechanisms for this. Police gather evidence. Prosecutors decide whether the evidence is sufficient to bring charges. The question keeps being asked, and I haven't seen it answered, whether a woman being raped, who gets her hands on a gun and kills her assailant, should be charged and put in front of a jury, period, end of story. You can say that it is not clear that Zimmerman was being assaulted, but the police and prosecutors clearly believe that he was, or else he'd be in bracelets. You don't get to charge someone and put them in front of a jury "just in case" they might have committed a crime. People who claim, in other contexts, to be civil libertarians, should understand this better. I can't imagine they are comfortable with the police rounding up Occupiers and charging them willy nilly, with the justification that, if they're innocent, the jury will let them off and it will be no harm no foul.

People seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that it is a crime to kill someone. It is not. It is a crime to kill someone under most circumstances. It is not the job of the criminal justice system to determine whether one person has killed another; it is the job of the justice system to determine whether someone has committed a crime, and whether ther is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Please, "bias" conversations (for the most part) are just a waste of time. You have nothing to apologize for in terms of biases.

This is a political crime now. It doesn't matter what actually happens. The story blew up, first on social media and then in the national news because it reinforces old stereotypes just in time for the election. Surprise, surprise. Then we have to waste time talking about biases and feelings and impressions? It's a diversion from the only national story here- some group took the death of a seventeen year old kid and made it political...and the other side might not be too swift in playing along, but they sure didn't get this ball rolling. [or in other words: you don't get to have a conversation about the role the abused had in perpetuating violence.]

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

What in God's name was NBC thinking? Why? Why would you do this?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-look ... lice-tape/

NBC has revealed that it is launching an internal investigation into the “editing process” surrounding the conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher (shortly before Trayvon Martin was shot), where Zimmerman appears to volunteer racial information.

Exposed by Fox News and Newsbusters, NBC played the conversation on the “Today Show” as: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The unabridged version is:

Zimmerman: 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.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post noted:

The difference between what ‘Today’ put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the ‘Today’ version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person ‘looks black,’ a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

[...]

And it’s a falsehood with repercussions. Much of the public discussion over the past week has settled on how conflicting facts and interpretations call into question whether Zimmerman acted justifiably or criminally. That’s a process that’ll continue. But one set of facts in the case is ironclad, and that’s the back-and-forth between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting.

[Simple Minded]

Please, "bias" conversations (for the most part) are just a waste of time. You have nothing to apologize for in terms of biases.

This is a political crime now. It doesn't matter what actually happens. The story blew up, first on social media and then in the national news because it reinforces old stereotypes just in time for the election. Surprise, surprise. Then we have to waste time talking about biases and feelings and impressions? It's a diversion from the only national story here- some group took the death of a seventeen year old kid and made it political...and the other side might not be too swift in playing along, but they sure didn't get this ball rolling. [or in other words: you don't get to have a conversation about the role the abused had in perpetuating violence.]

Thank you NapLajoieonSteroids.

So many biases...... so many agendas....... so many transmitters...... so few receivers...... so few thinkers.....

Would any control of the dumb masses be possible without resorting to personal emotional hot buttons?

The Masters of Streaming Media (MSM) have framed the discusion they want to proles to focus upon and argue........

"Look at my right hand......... not at my left hand............ good lemming..... good lemming......"

"MIC bad..... MSM good...... Us good...... Them bad....... good lemming..... good lemming......."

"Focus on the past...... ignore the present...... good lemming...... good lemming......"

"The world is a tragedy to the person who feels........"

[Ibrahim]

. . leaving his vehicle to stalk Martin . .

Stalk? Bullsh*t! Since when is keeping an eye on someone "stalking" them? What crap! As the situation is known at this time, all Martin needed to do was keep on walking.

Please consult your dictionary.

stalk verb
Definition of STALK
intransitive verb
1: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
2: to walk stiffly or haughtily
transitive verb
1: to pursue by stalking
2: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>
3: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
— stalk·er noun


2 and 3 of the transitive verb definitions apply. We know he followed Martin, and we know Martin ended up dead, though unarmed and not engaged in any known criminal activity.

[Ibrahim]

When did compassion become a 'bleeding heart' value? I used to think it was one of the core Christian virtues, but it seems like American Christians have contempt for it more than anyone else.

This is actually my main thought when discussing this as well. I said near the start that I don't see where the push-back would come from. I wouldn't specify it as Christian, just basic ethics.

[Ibrahim]

I'm utterly mystified by Tinker (and other's) insistence that, if one person kills another, no matter what happens, that person should be charged with a crime and put in front of a jury. There are mechanisms for this. Police gather evidence. Prosecutors decide whether the evidence is sufficient to bring charges. The question keeps being asked, and I haven't seen it answered, whether a woman being raped, who gets her hands on a gun and kills her assailant, should be charged and put in front of a jury, period, end of story. You can say that it is not clear that Zimmerman was being assaulted, but the police and prosecutors clearly believe that he was, or else he'd be in bracelets. You don't get to charge someone and put them in front of a jury "just in case" they might have committed a crime. People who claim, in other contexts, to be civil libertarians, should understand this better. I can't imagine they are comfortable with the police rounding up Occupiers and charging them willy nilly, with the justification that, if they're innocent, the jury will let them off and it will be no harm no foul.

People seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that it is a crime to kill someone. It is not. It is a crime to kill someone under most circumstances. It is not the job of the criminal justice system to determine whether one person has killed another; it is the job of the justice system to determine whether someone has committed a crime, and whether ther is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

One of the few known facts in the case is that Zimmerman killed Martin, a point his camp concedes. Since, as you point out, almost all instances of homocide are illegal, it would have been sensible for the authorities to charge and detain Zimmerman initially, with him then going through the usual arraignment and bail process.

There is no developed country in the world where events would have unfolded as they have in this case.

[Ibrahim]

" Murder" is a judicial decision, not an act where one person kills another.

The label jumps the gun.

Very true. I've used the term "murder" several times, but my position has been consistent. I am of the opinion that this case is a murder, but the only fact is that there was a killing. The legal system has yet to determine if it was a culpable homocide or not. I suspect it won't end in a murder conviction, though I will still be of the opinion that it was a murder (barring new evidence).

[Marcus]

. . leaving his vehicle to stalk Martin . .

Stalk? Bullsh*t! Since when is keeping an eye on someone "stalking" them? What crap! As the situation is known at this time, all Martin needed to do was keep on walking.

Please consult your dictionary.

stalk
1: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
2: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>

We know he followed Martin, and we know Martin ended up dead, though unarmed and not engaged in any known criminal activity.

As you say, Z "followed" or "observed" M, nothing more. "Stalk" connotes sinister intent. More of your biased bullsh*t.

[Demon of Undoing]

That's fine by me. I've found that being overly strict with the language is usually counterproductive, but this is a big word. And I do understand coming from a position where this incident is, unless contradicted by hard fact, by default a murder. I come from a place and a tradition where it is not called such automatically.

However I do acquiesce that this place is singularly violent and poisoned by hatred on many sides.

[Ibrahim]

. . leaving his vehicle to stalk Martin . .

Stalk? Bullsh*t! Since when is keeping an eye on someone "stalking" them? What crap! As the situation is known at this time, all Martin needed to do was keep on walking.

Please consult your dictionary.

stalk verb
Definition of STALK
intransitive verb
1: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
2: to walk stiffly or haughtily
transitive verb
1: to pursue by stalking
2: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry <stalk the woods for deer>
3: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
— stalk·er noun


2 and 3 of the transitive verb definitions apply. We know he followed Martin, and we know Martin ended up dead, though unarmed and not engaged in any known criminal activity.

As you say, Z "followed" or "observed" M, nothing more. "Stalk" connotes sinister intent. More of your biased bullsh*t.

He followed him and shot and killed him. Those are facts. "Stalking" seems accurate to me.

The period in between those two facts is unclear, but you repeatedly state that Martin attacked Zimmerman and the killing was justified. So I'll stick with "stalked," and you can work on defining "biased bullshit."

[Ibrahim]

That's fine by me. I've found that being overly strict with the language is usually counterproductive, but this is a big word. And I do understand coming from a position where this incident is, unless contradicted by hard fact, by default a murder. I come from a place and a tradition where it is not called such automatically.

However I do acquiesce that this place is singularly violent and poisoned by hatred on many sides.

Even under Canadian law it would be unlikey that he would be tagged with full "murder," probably some kind of manslaughter. I use the term murder because, in my opinion, Zimmerman is ultimately morally responsible for Martin's death. But that is of course an opinion formed by the incomplete, and probably never complete, picture of the events as they took place.

There is plenty of hatred out there in the world, but this case doesn't seem to be motivated by it. The whole thing strikes me as Zimmerman just being a spaz and making a few bad decisions. He probably even feels awful about it. But even mistakes should have consequences.


More esoteric though: Zimmerman's fate wouldn't seem so debatable if the US penal system wasn't so dysfunctional. For example If his potential punishment were to sit in some Scandinavian prison and think about his crime, as opposed to the violence and terror he would certainly experience in an American prison.

[Demon of Undoing]

More esoteric though: Zimmerman's fate wouldn't seem so debatable if the US penal system wasn't so dysfunctional. For example If his potential punishment were to sit in some Scandinavian prison and think about his crime, as opposed to the violence and terror he would certainly experience in an American prison.

Good observation. This is why, in my mind, somebody has to have been clearly guilty to convict. It makes for too many guilty going free, but you know that old saw.

[Marcus]

He followed him and shot and killed him. Those are facts. "Stalking" seems accurate to me.

The period in between those two facts is unclear, but you repeatedly state that Martin attacked Zimmerman and the killing was justified. So I'll stick with "stalked," and you can work on defining "biased bullshit."

As you say, Z "followed" M, nothing more. "Stalking" exists only in your mind, which, it would seem, has already convicted Z of murder. Sounds like bullsh*t to me.

No, I did not say that . . there you go again making rank assertions based on nothing more than your predisposed, overactive imagination. More bullsh*t. What I did say was that as the case has been presented so far, Z was justified in protecting himself.

Chill . . calm your bleeding heart . .

[Mr. Perfect]

There is no developed country in the world where events would have unfolded as they have in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_a_foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_%28law%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiality_%28law%29