17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[broncofan]

Oh boy. Guess if I ever want to become the next big hip-hop star, all Ize gots ta does is add some "colored" sugar & tussin to my watermelon juice. It's on the internet. Must be true.

LMAO.

I just had chicken tikka masala and coffee. I've heard you can make a hydrogen bomb with this combination. The FBI is just about to break down my door.

[broncofan]

If you want to get high on codeine do you really need skittles and iced tea to do it. That's like saying that someone coming home from the store with only orange juice was preparing to make screw drivers (and yes I saw the screenshots).

But let's say he was preparing to make some and he was carrying the ingredients with him, it's pretty unlikely that he had just consumed it....which would make it completely irrelevant to what happened.

[robertlouis]

Enuff said.

[bobvela]

I go away for a few days and return to see this dribble...

Unfortunately for Chicago, it's close to Wisconsin and Iowa where its very easy to acquire firearms and bring them into the city.

Yes... it's all the fault of the near by states... the gun laws & culture in Chicago & Illinois contribute nothing. It will be interesting to see if the court mandated (and eventually legislatively passed) ability to carry a concealed weapon will do anything in Chicago or Illinois in general to combat the rate of murders & illegal shootings.

Look at States, not cities. States with lenient firearm laws have the highest rates of gun crime.

Liar.

Or would you like to provide specific information?

Why would I even ask? We know about your inability to argue in anyway other than emotionally.

I will, lets start with this nice Wikipedia article: Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DC has some of the strongest gun 'control' in the nation and leads the nation in terms of murders (as well as murders from a firearm in the nation), while states like California & New York (also very restrictive) rank quite high.

You could point out that the Brady score for many such high death states are quite low... which ignores the fact that their scores are political and unrelated to reality (ie median value of 8 and average of 16.72 on a range of 0-100), while the stats well documented by John Lott show that the easier it is to get & carry a gun leads to less gun crime.

[trish]

I say look at State and you immediately jump to DC which is such a small district it's essentially a city stuck between Virginia, Maryland and very close to West Virginia and New Jersey. I do not deny the influence of gun culture on firearm related deaths; Americans love guns like they love their penises. Only someone emotionally attached to firearms (a gun enthusiast, if you will) would think more guns would decrease the probability of death or injury by firearm.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...te-per-100-000

[yodajazz]

>>>“He's not on PCP. He's not on anything. He’s on Skittles.”

As a matter of fact, Trayvon's own Facebook page admits that he was addicted to "Sizzurp" or "Purple Drank", which is a cocktail of codeine (or Robitussin, if codeine is unavailable), mixed with Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and Skittles. The coating on the Skittles, apparently, dissolves in the cocktail, giving the drink its distinctive purple color.

Trayvon had just purchased Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea and Skittles. It's likely he was going to make some "Purple Drank" when he returned home, though it's uncertain whether he had access to codeine at that time.

One effect of consuming this stuff on a regular basis is violent and paranoid behavior. So it's certainly possible that Trayvon initiated a surprise attack on Zimmerman.

In any case, we know from eye-witness testimony, that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was on bottom during a violent row between the two. Zimmerman's voice was also identified as the one yelling for help on a 911 call, and he had lacerations to the back of his head from Martin having pounded it on a concrete walkway. Irrespective of who started what, someone on the bottom has a right to defend himself in whatever way he can. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman's self-defense took the form of deadly force from a legally concealed firearm.

The constant drumbeat in the mainstream media of Trayvon as a kind of cherub — just a young kid with some candy in his pocket and a container of "soft drink" (the media never tells us what it was specifically) — is propaganda, probably for anti-gun, gun-control purposes, though it may have some racial component, too.

See:

http://www.occupyhln.org/george-zimm...-purple-drank/

The article has screenshots of Martin's Facebook page asking where he can score some prescription codeine.

It doesn't matter if this was true,or not. Zimmerman's attorneys argued before the trial, any of Zimmerman's history, prior to that night was not relevant to the actual night of the incident. Apparently they were successful. Prior to the trial, I heard reports of Zimmerman's, negative relations with co-workers, prescription drug usage, for anxiety, which then would require a health diagnosis. Also as a matter of record, there was some sort of domestic restraining order, and something involving an assault on a police officer. Seems to me that, for the state to prove a "depraved state of mind', a person's, legal and health history are relevant. That all being said, why does Martin, living or dead, not have the same rights as Zimmerman, who killed him? Are not they both human beings? Or does a different legal standard apply to Blacks and Whites? These are not rhetorical questions. I want an answer from you. The answers point to a larger issue, one which makes Black Americans the most incarcerated people on planet Earth.

This whole issue of drug usage by Blacks, has an underlying assumption. That is that Blacks are sub-human, and that drug usage then has more serious effects, closer to that of animals, compared to others. One way this was done legally, was to classify crack cocaine use, done primarily in Black communities, was more serious than powdered cocaine, done in other communities. This was presented to Congress and others, as leading to more serious crime results, than powder cocaine. So laws were passed that gave, say ten times as much penalty for the same amount of the drug. This has lead to, what is sometimes called, "the prison generation", affecting the entire Black male chances in life.

Let's then bring this back to the Martin/Zimmeramn case. The assumption is that if Martin had marijuana in his system, and now also, that he used other drugs, he then is capable of attempted murder, of a person he had never met, for no logical reason. Human beings, who recognized as such, often have logical reasons, for their behaviors. Fear is on such, emotion, which is used to justify certain actions. The underlying assumption from those that believe Zimmerman's story, is that Trayvon did not have fear, of being followed, even though he indicated such while it was happening. An important thing in the trial was when the defense stated that Martin should have run home. What has been overlooked, is that he had no obligation to run into his house, specifically because of the "Stand You Ground Law". Once again I ask is there a different laws for Whites and Blacks? To be fair the prosecution, did state, in there closing, that Martin had no duty to run into his home, however they did not specifically mention the specific law, which would have made it easier to frame.

One last thing, lets look at your argument logically: A person (Martin) was going to get high, using items he had purchased from the store. But instead of using the items he purchased, he decides to kill a perfect stranger. But I guess, theoretically, he would have enjoyed his high better, after he killed someone, huh? And there are those who think racism is no longer an issue. God help us all.

[paulclifford]

>>>It doesn't matter if this was true,or not.

It will matter if there's a civil trial. Martin's parents have every right to pursue that, of course, but unsavory details about Trayvon will probably emerge, and the mainstream media will no longer be able to show photographs of him looking like a little cherub, "armed with nothing but a soft-drink and candy," which is how they've been trying to sell him to the public.

>>>That all being said, why does Martin, living or dead, not have the same rights as Zimmerman, who killed him?

In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.

Better question:

Given that due process was followed and the law upheld, who is Eric Holder to unilaterally interfere with that by tasking the Department of Justice to set up a website trolling for hearsay regarding any racist comments or behavior by Zimmerman? As if he personally must try to guarantee a certain kind of outcome of a criminal trial . . . an outcome more to his liking.

"Justice" is not a specific kind of outcome that you, Holder, or some special interest group, might happen to favor. "Justice" is a process, and the process cannot guarantee any particular kind of outcome.

>>>Or does a different legal standard apply to Blacks and Whites?

For example?

Anyway, how's this for a "different standard":

Before Zimmerman was arrested in 2012, a spokesman for the "New Black Panthers", Mikhail Muhammed, publicly announced a bounty on Zimmerman's head: $10k for his capture. After the acquittal, the group's national chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, urged nationwide protests by Blacks, and posted on Twitter that "We're at war!" I don't remember white spokespersons (if such exist) announcing anything similar before or after O.J. was acquitted of murdering two Whites. If I remember correctly, the extent of White protest at the time was a suggestion that drivers in Los Angeles turn their headlights on in the daytime.

I'd also like to know why racists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (to name but two self-appointed "leaders of the black community") suddenly become outspoken when someone with dark skin is killed by someone with light skin; but when someone with dark skin is murdered by someone else with dark skin — as happens 93% of the time — they say nothing, and are unconcerned.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...599902640.html

The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment
Black leaders weren't so much outraged at injustice as they were by the disregard of their own authority.

"On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren't so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, "You won't call the tune here. We will work within the law."

Today's black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and '60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.

The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.

One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today's civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?

There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today's civil-rights leadership."



>>>And there are those who think racism is no longer an issue.

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._july_1_2_2013

"Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way."

[The survey questions]:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ites_hispanics

[trish]

Anyone have a link to Eric Holder's snitch-on-Zimmerman-website?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=paulclifford;1368289

[I]In other words, why was Zimmerman (a so-called "white Hispanic") acquitted? Because in the opinion of a jury, he defended himself from an attacker, and therefore didn't commit a crime. In the opinion of the jury, the evidence was consistent with his narrative, and there was no other narrative to contest it or compare it to.
[/I]
-This is complete nonsense, and only serves to reinforce the idea that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor, and George Zimmerman the victim fighting for his life: instead of working backwards from the fact that GZ pulled the trigger, look at it this way:

1) GZ was a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer, but not acting as a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer on that night -even if he had been, he would know from the Police Department training instructions that it twice tells NW volunteers not to intervene in an incident or seek to apprehend anyone as this is Police Department business.
--GZ knew even before being told not to intervene on the phone that he had no authority to do so, even if legally the Police cannot force any member of the public in or out of NW schemes to hold back from becoming involved in a situation.
2) GZ had already decided that the person he saw was suspicious without offering that person an opportunity to explain why they were in the gated community, and in spite of the fact that is was none of Zimmerman's business to know anyway.
--the confrontation was initiated by George Zimmerman, and because he refused to testify, we do not know if he identified himself to Martin as a Neighbourhood Watch Voluteer or if he spoke politely to Martin to ask him if he was lost and needed help -the fair assumption on the basis of the language that he used when talking to the police is that Zimmerman confronted Martin with aggressive language which may have contained insulting words.
--It doesn't matter if Martin was taking home the ingredients to make Lean, Clean or Brylcreem, or if later that night he was plotting to rob the local Walmart with his father, or if he was looking through recruitment brochures for the priesthood -at the time he was confronted by Zimmerman for no reason, Martin was merely walking home from the store, and was probably lost as he decided to take a short cut in the rain and couldn't identify which house his father was staying in. He had no idea who Zimmerman was, just someone intruding on his private space.
--Crucially, did Zimmerman tell Martin that he had a gun and that he would use it? Why did Zimmerman even confront Martin when he could have walked away? The 'last resort' of pulling the trigger was not satisfactorily analysed in Court, we still do not know if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin or slipped on the wet grass and hit his head on the concrete path; whatever, perhaps in the USA you have become so used to violent acts appearing to be a 'solution' that it has become 'the only solution'.

On the evidence available, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman provoked an angry response from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman chose to use a lethal weapon in response. From start to finish, Zimmerman was the aggressor; there was only one victim, profiled from the moment he was seen as a 'problem' -regardless of his colour- Trayvon Martin, and George Zimmerman dealt with the problem in a violent way.

An average of 8,500 blacks are murdered each year in the US, and about 93% of these murders — more than 7,900 — are committed by blacks. Where's Jackson in all this? Where's Sharpton? Where's the mainstream media? Nowhere.

Black historian and scholar, Shelby Steele has some trenchant insights on all this:

Now that you mention it, according to one recent poll, many Americans (a little over 1/3rd) appear to think Blacks are significantly more racist than Whites. According to the same poll, even Blacks (a little less than 1/3rd) agree:

-Shelby Steele again works backwards from assumptions about the moral claims of the Civil Rights movement compared to contemporary -and largely self-appointed Black leaders when he would do better to ask why it is that so much time and money in the USA has been spent in attempting to derail the practical benefits of the Civil Rights laws that were passed in the 1960s and implemented in the 1970s and systematically undermined from the 1980s onwards.
-If, instead of leaping onto the hysteria of black crime statistics you look at the underlying themes and issues, you may find yourself in the period after the Civil War when legislation on gun control derived from the 2nd Amendment was produced precisely as a response by the panic-stricken 'American public' convinced that freed slaves with guns were going to go berserk in a rampage of crime and murder.

Because Black people and crime go together like burgers and fries? Is this sociology or Mythology?

--If you follow through the employment history of Black Americans freed from slavery, and the economic geography of industrial development between 1861 and say 1981, and the way in which this transformed Black lives just as Black lives transformed America, you may end up with provocative questions that are not based on the worthless, if automatic assumption that Black People are 'different from us', but questions that ask why people who were once in employment are now more likely to be unemployed; why Black people who have always been suspected of having a 'natural' tendency to laziness, sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, violent and criminal behaviour and of course, resentment, are more likely than any other social group in the USA to be arrested and incarcerated in the prison system which, in 2013, is a commercial enterprise which would cease to be viable without its Black consumers.

It seems to me, you have blamed the victim -Trayvon Martin- for no other reason than that he bothered George Zimmerman; just as you have cast Black americans as the victims of their own misfortune as if the history of the USA and their role in it are two mutually separate narratives.

As long as this debate is couched in terms of 'We and They' it will automatically assume that the difference is not just real, but impossible to heal. It matters not if the majority of Americans share the same history, the same space, the same medals for military service, the same aspirations and variations of ability and achievement; the core issue being used in this blame culture becomes colourful when it ought to be abstract; it becomes about the failings of a supposedly identifiable social group when it should be about an easily identified economic system that has failed to provide full employment.


Father and Mother, and Me,
Sister and Auntie say
All the people like us are We,
And every one else is They.
And They live over the sea,
While We live over the way,
But-would you believe it? – They look upon We
As only a sort of They!

We eat pork and beef
With cow-horn-handled knives.
They who gobble Their rice off a leaf,
Are horrified out of Their lives;
While they who live up a tree,
And feast on grubs and clay,
(Isn't it scandalous? ) look upon We
As a simply disgusting They!

We shoot birds with a gun.
They stick lions with spears.
Their full-dress is un-.
We dress up to Our ears.
They like Their friends for tea.
We like Our friends to stay;
And, after all that, They look upon We
As an utterly ignorant They!

We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk or blood,
Under an open thatch.
We have Doctors to fee.
They have Wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!

All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!

[Prospero]

Welcome back Stavros