So the short fat Latino dude ...

[Undertoad]

Ten black guys shot and killed in Philly since Saturday.

Nobody gives a shit about them.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Which is it?

In the history of civilization, I'm sure it's happened - but it's VERY rare. In my experience, it has never happened in any serious fight. Not only have I never seen a winner calling for help in a serious fight, but I've never heard of such a thing.

It's a totally different mind-set, when the fight is serious. Obviously, this was a *very* serious fight. Less than serious fight behavior, would not have been present.

Ten black guys shot and killed in Philly since Saturday.

Philly definitely needs a lot of help to stop these killings. Damn shame that's going on.

[piercehawkeye45]

I’ve been giving the trial and associated larger issues a lot of thought in the past few days and my conclusion is that this trial is a reflection of two clashing perspectives whose narratives are routinely marginalized by society and/or the media. Since both narratives have been suppressed and this trial directly addressed both perspectives, the amount of attention and the emotions attached to this trial were extremely high. Also, taking power dynamics into account, it is no surprise that Zimmerman, and his narrative, wins the case.

For an initial note, I am doing my best to explain my view of the two narratives in a more or less unbiased manner. I attempt to be brief and many issues are much more complicated than how I explain them. My personal views, thoughts, and experiences can be saved for a later post.

The first narrative is, stereotypically, a particular sub-group of the white middle-class (male) community. This group is fairly well off, prefers to live in safe (possibly gated) communities, and is increasingly worried about safety and crime. I don’t believe that the majority in this group are racists like people were in the 50’s and 60’s, but they notice that a disproportional amount of crime is committed by young black males. Along with being immersed in a racist social environment (we all have) which naturally exaggerates the young black male threat, there is large cultural clash between this group and the young black community. Due to a lack of understanding of the stereotypical young black culture’s dress, music, and mannerisms, it is difficult for them to recognize the small proportion of young black males that are a threat and therefore are much more cautious and fearful around all young black males. This, in my opinion, explains the racial stereotyping that occurs and the “justification” for laws such as ‘stop and frisk’.

This narrative is marginalized because any attempt to justify racial stereotyping, whether valid or not, is considered racist. Since the term racist is essentially equivalent to ‘Nazi’ in the US and the vast majority of white people will not embrace that label, for many legitimate reasons, the push for laws that racial profile are often done quietly and the reasons are often not publically defended.

The second perspective is that of the young black male. Due to some of the reasons stated above, the majority of young black males suffer racial profiling and discrimination due to the inability to differentiate the problematic young black males from the rest of the population due to mannerisms and dress. Therefore, this group routinely gets mistrusted by the general population, get guns pointed at them by police when stopped, and are largely at risk to being sent to prison (largely due to non-violent drug related crimes). This group feels threated by the police and other institutions that are set up to protect the first group because it is largely designed, purposefully or not, to indirectly target them.

This narrative is marginalized from what seems like a combination of typical minority status, annoyance of complaints from the rest of the population, and mistrust.

The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects both narratives because the first group can sympathize partly or fully with Zimmerman while the second group can sympathize with Martin. There were various burglaries in the area, committed by young black men, so Zimmerman was more vigilant of young black men that may be committing these crimes. Martin had relatives that lived in the area and was minding his own business and felt targeted due to his skin color and dress. The fear and misunderstanding from both parties led to a fight that resulted in the death of Martin. Obviously, people from both groups will naturally defend their narrative and this explains why this case became so important to many groups.

While I will strongly argue that both narratives are marginalized, although not necessarily to an equal degree, it is clear that one narrative has complete power over the other. There is a fairly simple reason why these laws exist and why one group has essentially complete control over the other: power. It is the people in the first narrative that control politics. It is people in the first narrative that design police tactics and the ‘Stand your ground’ laws. I do not believe that, in general, the people in the first group purposely create racists laws but they design these laws around their narrative and in their best self-interests. Since they have a monopoly on the power to design and control these laws, the laws will naturally be a reflection of that.

This is obviously not an ideal situation and is an obvious injustice toward the second group. However, since this is based on power and not morals, pointing out this injustice will not solve the problem because people in the first group will not sacrifice their safety for the sake of another group. Also, the targeting of their narrative by liberals will only cause them to be more set in their views. In order for young black men to defend themselves on an institutional level, they need representation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Philly definitely needs a lot of help to stop these killings. Damn shame that's going on.

Same for Chicago.

[sexobon]

When Zimmerman gets his gun back, he should demand the return of his bullet too. He can keep the gun and put the bullet up for sale on eBay.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, that's his lucky bullet. He should have Tonto recycle that into a fresh shell, for the next hoodie that tries to sneak into the shire.

[sexobon]

What size notch do you recommend for the handgun grip?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wouldn't weaken it with notches if he's going to use it as a bludgeon too.

[infinite monkey]

:losersmilie:

[Adak]

The history of "Stand Your Ground" laws, is not something I've studied in detail, but my take on it is this.

Going back before the industrial revolution, people moved at the speed of a horse (usually pulling a wagon or buggy), a sail or rowed boat, or at a walking pace. People moved very slowly, down bumpy and generally unpaved roads, carrying their food, water, and usually, what they were selling, or using as barter, that day: produce, animals, perhaps wood or iron works.

Point is, they had someplace they HAD to get to, and they couldn't just "run away" from any threat they encountered on the way. They had STUFF that would seriously slow them down. A man who felt threatened had little chance of running away to escape the threat, and would lose a substantial amount even if he succeeded, since his animals, cart, wagon, stock in trade, would have to be left behind, to make a quick get away (on just the horse, or by simply running).

Also, there were centuries in England and Europe, where wars were about as common as rain in the Spring. Men were expected or required, to fight in these wars, from time to time. Any man refusing to fight, would be dealt with severely - by his "Lordship", and possibly, by his village peers. If your neighbors had to go and fight, they don't want to have you enjoying home and hearth, instead of fighting with them.

And by God, no man would want to be labeled a COWARD, who ran away from every threat. We may all be sinners, but NOBODY wants to accept the label of COWARD.

[I mention the case of England, because our laws in the US, are based mostly on English Common Law.]

So I believe (and I have not studied this in detail), that "Stand Your Ground" laws WERE the ancient laws or customs, of England. This idea that you are required to run away from every threat, if you can, is a very modern legal requirement.

So Eric Holder is very likely a liar when he says otherwise, to the NAACP convention in Orlando, Florida, this week. He told them what they wanted to hear, just like a good little lying politician would.

If you have info on this, please enlighten me.

[chrisinhouston]

I thought this was a good annalysis of some of the reasons the jury reached the decision they did, that being based on the way the judge explained the law and her instructions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafai...ef=mostpopular

[chrisinhouston]

Adak, I think you are misunderstanding what is known as "the castle doctrine" which most "stand your ground" laws are based on. I believe it had more to do with protecting one's home or "castle." I don't follow your connection to people being conscripted to serve in battle. I also think it worth noting that current UK laws have no such provision and that a home owner defending his/her home with a weapon is most likely breaking the law!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cele...ith-knife.html

I also don't understand your claim that AG Holder is a liar. I thought his speech was pertinent and extemely personal as to his experinces as a black man.

Origin of Castle Doctrin laws from Wikipedia:
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]

The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
—William Blackstone,*Commentaries on the Laws of England

[Spexxvet]

To the juror who said Zimmerman's heart was in the right place:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...ave-had-a-gun/

In July 2005, he was arrested for“resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

Violence against women
violence against authority
alcohol problem
paranoia of African Americans

It's no wonder Martin is dead. If Trayvon had the gun that night, and killed Zimmerman, I think the outcome would have been different.

[DanaC]

The case last year of a black woman, in the same state, being sentenced to 20 years for firing her gun into the air to frighten away her abusive husband, with the judge saying SYG didn't apply, suggests you may be right.

[Griff]

As I understand that case, the DA convinced the jury that they were both abusers, her shot "into the air" was aimed at the husband and narrowly missed him and the children going through the kitchen wall. Stand your ground was not allowed by the judge because she went back into the house with a gun for her car keys after leaving. She refused a three year plea bargain was convicted and got ten years plus ten for using a gun in the commission of a crime. This is gleaned from the net, I don't have a good source. Much like the current case it is tried in the press under different terms than the court case. Our judicial system is a mess but our entertainment based press is as much problem as solution.