|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 15 2013 09:52 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 09:41 BigFan wrote:On July 15 2013 09:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 09:39 BigFan wrote:oh wow, this is recent as in yesterday lol. I don't see how having another trial would be possible seeing as how the evidence will remain the same and the chance of acquittal is through the roof. Fact is, there isn't much evidence to work with. Wonder how long these protests will continue for. thats a year old. oops, missed the date lol. I guess they are checking again then since I also heard that they are investigating whether there is a hate crime or not. i think its just the NAACP petition going around. i have yet to see anything of substance from the government saying they are going to re-open the investigation. and, honestly, its a pipe dream by the NAACP. the FBI would have to say that their initial investigation was wrong, and they were completely idiotic by saying it wasnt racism. and then they would have to explain why they did a complete reversal immediately after the trial. beergate x100. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department said Sunday it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors will file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin's death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. In a statement, the Justice Department said the criminal section of its civil rights division, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Middle District of Florida are continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal probe, in addition to the evidence and testimony from the state trial. "Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction," the statement said. Justice added that it will determine "whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the department's policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial." + Show Spoiler +Fom the Rodney King case in Los Angeles to the Algiers Motel incident in Detroit more than four decades ago, the Justice Department has a long history of using federal civil rights law in an effort to convict defendants who have previously been acquitted in related state cases.
On Sunday, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous started a petition calling for the Justice Department to open a civil rights case against Zimmerman for the shooting death of 17-year-old Martin, but experience has shown it's almost never easy getting convictions in such high-profile prosecutions.
"The Justice Department would face significant challenges in bringing a federal civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman," said Alan Vinegrad, the former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. "There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome: They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street."
As to the last element, the confrontation between Zimmerman and the shooting victim occurred in a gated community, which may not fit the legal definition of a public facility.
Lauren Resnick, a former federal prosecutor in New York who successfully prosecuted a man in the killing of an Orthodox Jew during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, said the Justice Department could conceivably proceed under a theory that Zimmerman interfered with Martin's right to walk down a public street based on his race. But that would be challenging, she said, because it would require prosecutors to prove, among other things, that trailing Martin on the street constituted interference.
"One could argue it did, if it freaked him out and he couldn't comfortably walk down the street — there's an argument here," said Resnick, who now specializes in white-collar criminal defense and commercial litigation.
But she said federal prosecutors were likely to encounter the same hurdles as state prosecutors in establishing that Zimmerman was driven by racial animus and was the initial aggressor, as opposed to someone who acted in self-defense.
"When you have a fact pattern where one person's alive, and one person's not, and the person alive is the defendant, it's hard to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt," said Resnick. She also said it was easier to prove a criminal bias in the Crown Heights killing than it would be in any federal prosecution of Zimmerman.
Samuel Bagenstos, a former No. 2 official in the Justice Department's civil rights division, said: "This is an administration that hasn't shied away from bringing hate crimes cases that are solid prosecutions based on the facts and the law, but from what I've seen this would be a very difficult case to prosecute federally because the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted because of Trayvon Martin's race. If you're trying to prove racial motivation, you are usually looking for multiple statements related to why he is engaging in this act of violence. I think it's a difficult case to prove."
Another federal case, the Rodney King prosecution, illustrates just how difficult it can be for the federal government to come in behind a state prosecution that ended in acquittal, even when there's videotaped evidence of the crime.r Source: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-07-14/justice-dept-zimmerman-case-under-reviewWith that being said, they'll take a cursory glance at it to try to calm people down but I'd be shocked if anything came from it. thanks. i would love to see them arrest him for interfering with trayvon's right to walk down the street because he was black. because it would show how fucking stupid they are . even if they could win it, which is highly unlikely, it would just show them as petty and unwilling to man the fuck up in the face of mob justice.
|
On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent.
Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm
|
On July 15 2013 04:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:On July 14 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 13:35 KonekoTyriin wrote: The verdict may be in accordance with the law, but if so then I disagree quite strongly with the law. From what I understand of the case:
Zimmerman shot Martin with a gun. Because there was no prior intent (probably) and it was in self defense (almost certainly), it's reasonable that he did not intend to kill Martin. This sounds like an open and shut manslaughter conviction- though if testimony had uncovered intent, it could have been murder.
You can get convicted of manslaughter for building a house incautiously if it results in the house falling and killing someone inside. No matter how little you wanted that person to die or how indirectly your actions led to their death, if you kill someone, you at LEAST get manslaughter.
I don't understand how Zimmerman could possibly walk completely free from this. It does not seem consistent with justice as I understand it. if you assume its not self defense then of course you cant understand it. the jury found it was self defense. This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature... I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers... It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people. Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense". That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives. A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides. innocent until proven guilty. not proven guilty = innocent. welcome to america's legal justice system. What you said was "the jury found it was self defense." Which is not exactly true, sorry. The jury found it may have been self-defense, enough for reasonable doubt, and that was quite clearly what I was trying to say. And the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" actually does exist. Innocent means you were proved innocent. Not guilty means you weren't proven guilty. Yes, it's the same by law, but the language used is used for a reason. Do you really not see the difference? You are a lawyer, why are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not arguing with the verdict, just your statement. Your actual words, a courtesy this thread is in short supply of. Here's the point (which I made to you earlier in the thread):
You're right that the verdict is not a proclamation of innocence. It is what it is. A finding that he is not guilty. The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to negative self-defence. They either couldn't negative that assertion or amusingly, as it damages your point even more, they never satisfied the jury as to the existence of the elements of the offence in the first place.
In any event, what you conveniently ignore is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Ergo, in the absence of a conviction, he maintains his innocence and your post is redundant semantical argument.
|
On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm
Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations.
On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent.
Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice.
Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit.
zzzz. once again when Zimmerman contacted the police he said he was unsure of Trayvons race.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit. And how exactly do you know Zimmerman wouldn't have been suspicious? He was looking for criminals and despite his possible lack of judgement I don't believe he thinks white people can't commit crimes.
|
On July 15 2013 09:53 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:34 Mania[K]al wrote: I love how being "white"-hispanic makes you white.
If a black kid has a black dad and a white mom doesn't that make him a "white"-african as well?
Positive things are always associated with the underclass "half", and negative things will always be associated with the upperclass half. It will always be this way to a half-caste so long as a community feels they are not being treated fairly, right or wrong. It's why Zimmerman is white, and it's why Obama is black.
No, thats because during the US much more racist times, white people started the "one drop makes you a whole" thing, so if you had any black blood in you at all you were considered black, and it just stuck around til this day. Look up quadroon and octoroon.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations. Would institutionalized racism include the mass media apparatus of a nation aligning against you? Would it include your nation's government, educational, and financial institutions adhering to laws which put you at an inherent disadvantage?
|
On July 15 2013 05:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote: [quote] There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation. I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal. This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is: Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about. You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing. i have been debating whether to bring up but for and proximate cause. what do you think? I think attempts to educate on the law have been generally positive for a large portion of those reading this thread. If you're considering doing so for those who've shown consistent ignorance, well... you're going to continue to be disappointed.
|
|
On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent.
It only even made national media because it was a "white" on black crime.
All the other enormous amounts of black on X crime pass through daily news without many people paying much attention at all. But when a black person is the victim, suddenly its severely racist and the entire country needs to feel bad for the black community because they're still dealing with racism from us.... or something.
Cant remember the last time i saw a jewish person walk down the road and start rioting on a german establishment.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit.
So because white people have done racist things in the past that some how means they are the only people capable to being racist? Ok sure....
|
On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote: All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. Huh? What did Fox do wrong?
|
On July 15 2013 10:33 Mania[K]al wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. It only even made national media because it was a "white" on black crime. All the other enormous amounts of black on X crime pass through daily news without many people paying much attention at all. But when a black person is the victim, suddenly its severely racist and the entire country needs to feel bad for the black community because they're still dealing with racism from us.... or something. Cant remember the last time i saw a jewish person walk down the road and start rioting on a german establishment. Jews have largely moved on from the past and established a successful foothold in the US, thereby ironically making them a target for attack once again.
This is all part of the victim/oppressor dichotomy which is drilled into the minds of the public. We've gone from a nation which lauded success and therefore became successful, to a nation which incriminates success and therefore is on the decline globally.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations.Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit.
So what is the difference then? Are you saying that because of ancestors several generations back that being racist to someone who is black is worse than being racist to someone who is white?
If you are a believer that all men and women are equal (as in deserving of the same rights and freedoms) then you can't say that it's ok to give preferential treatment to one race over another, or downplay hatred or bigotry towards one race over another.
|
On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit.
Those generations are over. And you don't know whether Z would consider a white yoot in a hoodie to be suspicious under similar conditions.
|
On July 15 2013 10:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations.On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit. So what is the difference then? Are you saying that because of ancestors several generations back that being racist to someone who is black is worse than being racist to someone who is white? Racism towards whites isnt a thing
|
On July 15 2013 10:47 asdfou420 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:43 kmillz wrote:On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations.On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit. So what is the difference then? Are you saying that because of ancestors several generations back that being racist to someone who is black is worse than being racist to someone who is white? Racism towards whites isnt a thing
Are you sure?
Cleveland, Ohio. A white man on a moped accidentally bumped into a truck being driven by a black man. He fell over but was not injured. A crowd of 40 white people pulled the black driver from the truck and brutally beat him. One of them climbed in the truck and ran over the driver, killing him. The crowd cheered. Jacksonville, Florida. A group of four to six white men agreed that they would brutalize the next black person they saw walking down the street. That person turned out to be a mentally disabled 50-year-old, whom they beat and stomped into unconsciousness. He later died of his injuries.Are you surprised that you’ve never heard of these sickening murders based on racial hatred? You didn’t see saturation coverage on the news. You didn’t hear politicians decrying racism. You didn’t see a livid Jesse Jackson on CNN. Why? Because these acts of brutality didn’t happen exactly as I described above. Oh, they happened, all right. The only thing is, the races of the attackers and victims were reversed. That is, a white man was beaten and then crushed by a mob of 40 black people who were furious that a black man bumped into his truck.¹ In Jacksonville, it was a gang of black men who stomped a mentally-disabled man to death solely because he was white.²
http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/the-hate-crimes-you-dont-hear-about/
From my home city.
|
On July 15 2013 10:38 Artax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:33 Mania[K]al wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. It only even made national media because it was a "white" on black crime. All the other enormous amounts of black on X crime pass through daily news without many people paying much attention at all. But when a black person is the victim, suddenly its severely racist and the entire country needs to feel bad for the black community because they're still dealing with racism from us.... or something. Cant remember the last time i saw a jewish person walk down the road and start rioting on a german establishment. Jews have largely moved on from the past and established a successful foothold in the US, thereby ironically making them a target for attack once again. This is all part of the victim/oppressor dichotomy which is drilled into the minds of the public. We've gone from a nation which lauded success and therefore became successful, to a nation which incriminates success and therefore is on the decline globally.
And that is exactly the point im trying to make.
If this case was seen as every other case - an incident in which a young man lost his life, it wouldnt have even been a blip on the national radar. But the black community as a whole cannot move on from the past. Im not trying to be insensitive but much worse things have happened to groups of people (IE: Holocaust, Japanese occupation of Korea, Colonization of North America) and have been able to go on with their life without requiring an entire month to celebrate them, a channel, a college fund, or an award show. (All of which would be racist if they were for whites only, love the one way racism thats allowed)
|
On July 15 2013 10:51 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 10:47 asdfou420 wrote:On July 15 2013 10:43 kmillz wrote:On July 15 2013 10:26 plogamer wrote:On July 15 2013 10:01 Zenocide wrote:On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Because only white people are racist...../sarcasm Can't remember ever hearing about a white person being asked to sit in the back of a bus. Or being pulled over for being white. Racism is not the same when it isn't institutionalized and perpetrated throughout generations.On July 15 2013 09:57 AxUU wrote: What I don't get is, why is a white person racist for killing a black person. But a black person is NOT a racist for killing a white person? This whole thing is ridiculous, and Zimmerman is innocent. Zimmerman is not white afaik. And again, a white 17 year old in similar circumstances would not be suspicious to Zimmerman - which is the greater injustice. Regardless of it all, if Zimmerman was a cop; the city police department would be busy preparing for a huge lawsuit. So what is the difference then? Are you saying that because of ancestors several generations back that being racist to someone who is black is worse than being racist to someone who is white? Racism towards whites isnt a thing Are you sure? Show nested quote + Cleveland, Ohio. A white man on a moped accidentally bumped into a truck being driven by a black man. He fell over but was not injured. A crowd of 40 white people pulled the black driver from the truck and brutally beat him. One of them climbed in the truck and ran over the driver, killing him. The crowd cheered. Jacksonville, Florida. A group of four to six white men agreed that they would brutalize the next black person they saw walking down the street. That person turned out to be a mentally disabled 50-year-old, whom they beat and stomped into unconsciousness. He later died of his injuries.Are you surprised that you’ve never heard of these sickening murders based on racial hatred? You didn’t see saturation coverage on the news. You didn’t hear politicians decrying racism. You didn’t see a livid Jesse Jackson on CNN. Why? Because these acts of brutality didn’t happen exactly as I described above. Oh, they happened, all right. The only thing is, the races of the attackers and victims were reversed. That is, a white man was beaten and then crushed by a mob of 40 black people who were furious that a black man bumped into his truck.¹ In Jacksonville, it was a gang of black men who stomped a mentally-disabled man to death solely because he was white.² http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/the-hate-crimes-you-dont-hear-about/From my home city. i think what they are saying is that we should only care about racism if its an institutionalized thing, and that general racism is okay unless against non-whites and then its not okay (see institutionalized racism).
|
|
|
|