Are you part of the black community? Just because you see something on television doesn't mean that black people are only doing stuff for Trayvon. Most black on black homicides are gang related....gangbanging isn't just some black thing. AND when people suggest that it is then that's part of the problem we have today. This whole black on black thing is dangerous narrative because it makes people believe that black people are dangerous and violent. Here is what I will do, the black community has issues. As I've said before, I see no reason to even explain those issues especially since you are not in a hurry to explain problems this country may have in regards to black people. One thing black people are not asking is for white people to come sit in and mentor us or something, so what is the point of talking about? They are asking to remove various clear bias in this country That's because of the media and NO one else. I'm tired of this idea that black people don't know about gang violence in Chicago. It's the media that DOESN'T cover that. A young girl named Pendleton dies not long ago because of that, a innocent bystander...and her story was mentioned and you know what the President knew well enough about it and the First lady said similar things. "I was her." etc etc, but I didnt' see it get much play on the news. Oh and Jackson was there trying to get people to march too, but where was the airplay of it? I think it may have been a story for a few good days and now it's faded away. Martin's story is on the news because of him possibly being profiled. Because of the absurdity that Zimmerman was not charged as well. That's when Sharpton got involved because people asked him to get involved. Gang violence is a problem of the poor and not a problem of black people...and gang violence should be something that EVERYONE wants to get rid of.
LOL The prism of life in America is inextricably tied to race. It's not me looking for it. It's that fact being thrust on me at a very young age. Unfortunately you'd rather hide behind slogans and fairy tale nonsense than acknowledge the reality faced by millions of Americans. I feel sorry for you that you live in this inside out world where minorities all want a handout and your charity rather than the level playing field that is the promise of this country.
Yes, the facts are exhibit A of why the discussions are never productive. Good point. Whenever we talk about affirmative action on this board, it's that it should be based on socioeconomics and not race. Whenever we talk about racial profiling on this board it's that it's based on socioeconomics and not race. Whenever we talk about crime it's back to race and socioeconomics are forgotten again. And you don't have to take my word for it, go find a thread and read it for yourself. So where do minorities meet you half way on the blame for paying higher interest rates on bank loans?
Apparently for some people it isn't okay to convict Zimmerman of any crime before all the evidence has been heard and examined in court, but it is okay to convict Martin of a crime before all the evidence has been heard and examined in a court. I'm curious why these people have two different standards? What's the difference?
Yes, and assumptions of Martin instigating a fight are logical and reasonable but assumptions of Zimmerman instigating a fight are emotionally filled and lacking common sense.
Did those that had to pay higher rates have lower credit scores? If not, then yes, it is completely unfair and something that should be discussed more. If they did have lower scores, then that would be a case where you would really need to meet me all the way here. You cannot get upset with bad interest rates when your credit score is poor. That's just life, and we all have to deal with it.
People are only going to humor you so much on this. It is very apparent, after the trial, that Martin was the aggressor. It is stuff just like this that causes the bogging down of the open and honest discussion about race. You have to be willing to give some ground and admit that Martin was the aggressor. To hold onto the fact that you do not know who the aggressor was is petty, disingenuous and counter-productive to any sort of helpful discussion.
To hold on to the fact that you don't know who the aggressor was is giving the Martin the same benefit of a trial before conviction that Zimmerman got. Martin has never been put on trial and never had a defense presented on his behalf about him committing the crime of assault. Until seeing all of that evidence presented in court it would be a rush to judgment to say Martin was guilty of that. If you are anyone else wants to rush to judgment and conclude despite there not being a trial that Martin was guilty, then that's on you and it's giving Martin less of a chance to have his name cleared than Zimmerman got.
This is like arguing with a six year old about where the piece of candy went. Hey it could have magically disappeared. Maybe a genie came along, ate it and then disappeared....we don't know for sure. We can't pinpoint for certain who took the candy. Yeah...yeah we can.
Like I said, if you want to rush to judgment you are free to do that. But it is a rush to judgment and luckily for Zimmerman the jurors in his trial didn't rush to judgment and say that an armed man with a criminal record following following an unarmed teen with no criminal record who admitted shooting and killing the teen was guilty. They waited and looked at all of the evidence. Now if we want to look at only the evidence presented in the case, there is one witness who heard Zimmerman confront Martin. There are zero witnesses who claim they saw Martin attack Zimmerman. There were zero witnesses who claim they saw Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete. The evidence that helps Zimmerman is that he had some injuries and Martin didn't except for the gunshot. So just looking at the evidence alone it isn't really overwhelmingly conclusive for either side. But it's also irrelevant because Martin was never tried and never got to put up a defense about whether or not he illegally assaulted Zimmerman. Again, you are holding the two men to different standards.
Yeah, there are a whole laundry list of things we did not get a trial on. We can't say for sure that Trayvon was black, because that was not on trial. We can't say whether he was 17 for sure, because that aspect was not on trial. We can't say for sure if Zimmerman was actually an Hispanic male and not a Korean lady, because that particular fact was not on trial. All kinds of stuff we cannot say for sure about life until we get a trial and hear some testimony.
The stuff you mentioned aren't actually crimes that people are supposed to be presumed innocent of until proven guilty. One person got to have a trial about the crime he's been accused of, and was found not guilty. The other person hasn't been put on trial for the crime you're saying he's guilty of, and yet you're still saying he's guilty for certain. You can mention things that aren't crimes and act like you have a point, but you don't. All I'm talking about is holding both men to the same standard or justice before convicting them. Holding them both to the exact same standard is fair, and is rule of law in the United States. Trayvon may be guilty of what you're claiming, but it hasn't been proven in a court of law.
I think the point that Franchise is trying to make is NO ONE knows what happened. So to suggest you know is a bit dishonest. The Jurors did not know, the juror's were asked if they thought GZ feared for his life during the fight AND that was why he was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. NO ONE knows what started the fight. No one has any idea because there is a period where literally no one knows a thing about what happened. Fine if you believe Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, but you really have no proof to back that up and say that as fact.
Now I feel really sorry for you if you think like that.What a person does or accomplishes in life is what they put into it. Race is not a limiting factor unless you let it be. Look no farther than President Obama and Clarence Thomas as examples. BTW, one of these days you will come to find out just how real the "fairy tale" I place my faith in is. I pray you wake up and realize this before it is too late.
I don't know, but maybe you might have selected another example to go along with President Obama (since Thomas benefited from the very affirmative action program he now opposes)? Seems conservatives prefer to trot out Herman Cain and more recently Dr. Ben Carson... *sigh*... I always find it comforting when a white person tells me how level the playing field is right now...
If you choose to go through life with a chip on your shoulder thinking you are somehow limited by being African American, Hispanic, etc.. and white people have it so easy then that is your problem. Everything I have is by the grace of God and the sweat of my brow. If you think your race is holding you back then the only thing holding you back is you.
