The Trayvon Martin Case

[Dave McReynolds]

One thing that seems to be missing in all this dialog is the fact that it is not an easy thing to attempt to take the life of another.

 

 

Hard for some; easy for others. There's lots of different kinds of people in the world. One of the biggest mistakes we make in life is to assume that other people have the same motivations, fears, likes or dislikes as we do.

[moshe_levy]

There is plenty of training opportunities available. Unfortunately, people of the Bill Cosby & Moshe Levy variety fail to see the advantages thereof.

 

Totally incorrect. I cannot speak for Bill Cosby. I can speak for me, and right above very clearly I advocated MORE training, not less. My wife is an RN. She has a degree and must fulfill certain training requirements yearly to retain her license. For a doctor, obviously, the standards are far higher. I simply ask: Does it not violate common sense to allow no standards for carrying lethal weapons with which to TAKE life, yet compell those who want to SAVE life to adhere to much higher standards of performance?

 

I say this not as a gun aficionado. I personally do not know all of the standards that are involved. My gut feel, based on vehement opposition to common sense stuff like background checks, tells me it's like getting a motorcycle license - which is to say, not much, at all.

 

So when it's made easy to take life, but it's hard to save 'em, what does that say about this culture?

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I advocated MORE training, not less

 

The problem with more training when it comes to guns is that the training is directed at safe use of guns, accurate use of guns, legal use of guns, which is all fine for keeping Joe Public on the right side of the law. Joe Psychopath is easily able to pass the same training too, so I'm not so sure that training is of much use when it comes to preventing purposeful misuse of firearms. Or, for that matter, of preventing just about anyone who doesn't give a f**k from obtaining a firearm illegally and doing pretty much whatever they want with it.

[Huzband]

Not totally incorrect, but maybe somewhat.

 

Your previous posts indicate that you're anti gun. If I'm wrong,or not, please explain your position thereof.

[Huzband]

I advocated MORE training, not less

 

The problem with more training when it comes to guns is that the training is directed at safe use of guns, accurate use of guns, legal use of guns, which is all fine for keeping Joe Public on the right side of the law. Joe Psychopath is easily able to pass the same training too, so I'm not so sure that training is of much use when it comes to preventing purposeful misuse of firearms. Or, for that matter, of preventing just about anyone who doesn't give a f**k from obtaining a firearm illegally and doing pretty much whatever they want with it.

 

So, based on that line of thought, legal guns should be banned? So only criminals have guns? That's what it would lead to.

[Dave McReynolds]

So, based on that line of thought, legal guns should be banned? So only criminals have guns? That's what it would lead to

 

Where, in my post, would you get the idea that I'm in favor of banning the legal use of guns?

[Huzband]

This.

 

Joe Psychopath is easily able to pass the same training too, so I'm not so sure that training is of much use when it comes to preventing purposeful misuse of firearms. Or, for that matter, of preventing just about anyone who doesn't give a f**k from obtaining a firearm illegally and doing pretty much whatever they want with it

 

If I missed something in the context, I'm open to correction.

[Dave McReynolds]

This.

 

Joe Psychopath is easily able to pass the same training too, so I'm not so sure that training is of much use when it comes to preventing purposeful misuse of firearms. Or, for that matter, of preventing just about anyone who doesn't give a f**k from obtaining a firearm illegally and doing pretty much whatever they want with it

 

If I missed something in the context, I'm open to correction.

 

What is it, in my post, that you disagree with?

[beemerman2k]

...people of the Bill Cosby & Moshe Levy variety...

 

I am going to install yet another rule in this thread -- as the thread creator, not as a moderator.

 

While I would be honored to be associated with Bill Cosby, let's not call each other out by name like this. No need for the kind of confrontational scenarios such a thing surely creates. When debating race and guns, things get hot enough as it is, we don't need to hurl anymore gas on the fire.

[Huzband]

Just that you put Joe Psychopath in the same category as responsible carriers.

[Huzband]

...people of the Bill Cosby & Moshe Levy variety...

 

I am going to install yet another rule in this thread -- as the thread creator, not as a moderator.

 

While I would be honored to be associated with Bill Cosby, let's not call each other out by name like this. No need for the kind of confrontational scenarios such a thing surely creates. When debating race and guns, things get hot enough as it is, we don't need to hurl anymore gas on the fire.

 

James, to be clear. I was only comparing the two as being anti gun. I don't see how that violated your rules, which I re-read this evening before posting.

 

If I missed something, I'm welcome to clarification.

[Dave McReynolds]

Do you think that Joe Psychopath would have a harder time passing a weapons class than a responsible carrier?

[Huzband]

Do you think that Joe Psychopath would have a harder time passing a weapons class than a responsible carrier?

 

That's a whole 'nother thread of it's own.

 

Yes, criminals have guns. Doesn't mean responsible citizens shouldn't have same.

[Dave McReynolds]

Yes, criminals have guns. Doesn't mean responsible citizens shouldn't have same.

 

Did I say that they shouldn't?

[Huzband]

What's your argument again?

[beemerman2k]

...people of the Bill Cosby & Moshe Levy variety...

 

I am going to install yet another rule in this thread -- as the thread creator, not as a moderator.

 

While I would be honored to be associated with Bill Cosby, let's not call each other out by name like this. No need for the kind of confrontational scenarios such a thing surely creates. When debating race and guns, things get hot enough as it is, we don't need to hurl anymore gas on the fire.

 

James, to be clear. I was only comparing the two as being anti gun. I don't see how that violated your rules, which I re-read this evening before posting.

 

If I missed something, I'm welcome to clarification.

 

OK, to be clear, you violated no rules. None whatsoever. My radar is up because not even race compares with the heat a gun debate often generates. I greatly appreciate the passion, yet civility demonstrated in this thread thus far and I don't want to see it end, that's all.

 

My daughter would be shaking their heads at me right now if they were reading this: "there goes over protective Daddy!". Sorry if I am guarding against a problem that isn't there, but this isnt the first time this has happened :smirk:

[Huzband]

Do you think that Joe Psychopath would have a harder time passing a weapons class than a responsible carrier?

 

Anyone can pretend to be someone they're not. See terrorists.

[Dave McReynolds]

What's your argument again?

 

I don't think I could state it any more clearly by repeating it. Maybe you should just read my post again without any preconceptions.

[Huzband]

purposeful misuse of firearms.

 

That.

[Dave McReynolds]

My point was that training has no effect on the purposeful misuse of firearms. Do you disagree with that?

[Huzband]

Do you think Z was miss purposeful in the use of his firearm?

[Dave McReynolds]

I have no idea. Training doesn't cure stupid, and it doesn't cure evil. Whether either of these factors entered into this tragedy is yet to be determined.

[Ken H.]

Ken,

Here is a short transcript from NPR (not exactly right wing).

In it 2 attorneys familiar with self defense and the SYG changes to Florida statutes provide a fairly succinct

history, explanation, and burdens to be met.

Worth reading IMO as many are confused between self defense rights and SYG.

link NPR and SYG in Florida

Yes, definitely interesting.

[SeanC]

I do not have an opinion in the Trayvon Martin case, but if I did, I would never share it. It's just a lose-lose situation.

[pbharvey]

At what point when you are in the middle of getting your butt kicked would you pull out your gun? I've thought about this a lot and frankly I'm not sure. There's a thin line between getting a broken nose and having your jaw shattered or losing an eye.

 

And how exactly is this supposed to go down? You're on your back with a larger man sitting on your chest. You free up an arm and grab your gun out of your waistband. Then what? Do you say, "stop I have a gun" or do you just pull the trigger? Does the next punch knock you out? Give up the element of surprise and you might lose your gun and your life. Its easy to say that Z should only use his weapon as a last resort but what does that really mean in the heat of battle so to speak? Z called 911, he knew help was on the way. Does it make any sense that he'd shoot M unless he felt it was his only option?

 

...or do some of you think Z the wannabe cop just executed M right after Z called 911?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

I'm rather confused as to how training is being so glossed over, when we're talking about the use of lethal force. In martial arts, the highest level is not to use force, but to control a situation using the least amount of force possible. It is the mark of a beginner to counter force with force. It is the sign of a beginner to panic under pressure and lose control. A beginner is one who has had no training. This does not make him a bad person - but it is asinine to compare his level to that of a master, who by definition has had continuous training.

 

We do not know what was on anyone's mind. But the actual men with professional experience in these matters among us have spoken right here. Read what they wrote carefully and with a clear and open mind. You will see very clearly that all have shared the same basic premise. Unanimously. Concidence?

 

All of what they wrote initially, as I read it, speaks from learned wisdom and years of experience, an infinitely higher caliber of opinion than ones based solely on ideology. That much is crystal clear. If I were a betting man, I would guess that they will be proven correct, though drowned out by sloganeering and opportunists looking to pivot the conversation to suit their agendas. We are in an age where sadly, a considered and measured opinion based on experience is an endangered species. It is right in front of you right here in this thread, if you care to see it.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

I'm rather confused as to how training is being so glossed over, when we're talking about the use of lethal force. In martial arts, the highest level is not to use force, but to control a situation using the least amount of force possible. It is the mark of a beginner to counter force with force. It is the sign of a beginner to panic under pressure and lose control. A beginner is one who has had no training. This does not make him a bad person - but it is asinine to compare his level to that of a master, who by definition has had continuous training.

 

We do not know what was on anyone's mind. But the actual men with professional experience in these matters among us have spoken right here. Read what they wrote carefully and with a clear and open mind. You will see very clearly that all have shared the same basic premise. Unanimously. Concidence?

 

All of what they wrote initially, as I read it, speaks from learned wisdom and years of experience, an infinitely higher caliber of opinion than ones based solely on ideology. That much is crystal clear. If I were a betting man, I would guess that they will be proven correct, though drowned out by sloganeering and opportunists looking to pivot the conversation to suit their agendas. We are in an age where sadly, a considered and measured opinion based on experience is an endangered species. It is right in front of you right here in this thread, if you care to see it.

 

-MKL

 

 

What was the opinion of the police officers who were actually at the crime scene and interviewed Z and the witness?

[pmurphy]

Patrick, you paint a nice ideological painting where everyone is colour (and other differences for that matter) blind and race as a motivation in an action is never a factor, be it in violence of be it in opportunity; but that’s just not where the USA is at. Not yet. To say that the USA is equal for ______________ (fill in name of identifiable group here is just plain denial of the facts.

 

Instead of trying to pretend racism doesn’t exist in the USA, I think the country would be better served by first some admittance that it does, and then some serious dialog and soul searching about why it still does exist and what can be done about it.

 

Eureka, I can see!

Women in mall finds another child prettier than your.... Racist!

Get picked last for the Dodge ball game....Racist!

Get a B in match.....Racist!

Didn't win the lottery......Racist!

Get shot while pounding someones head into the pavement.....RACIST!

 

The answer to all lives failings, disappointments. It wasn't me, it was those D**N RACIST!

 

What is the answer to inequality in society? We will just make those who see themselves in-equal, privileged. Then everybody will be equal.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

What is the answer to inequality in society? We will just make those who see themselves in-equal, privileged. Then everybody will be equal.

 

No, I have a better idea. We'll stick our soft, mushy, empty heads in the sand, and deny reality. We'll pretend history never happened, to make ourselves feel better. We'll pay cheap lip service to individualism while denying individual experiences may be different than our own, to make ourselves feel better. (The irony will never occur to us). And above all, we'll spout shallow bumper sticker slogans that make us feel, as though we have all the answers, when in fact we sound like morons addressing horrendously complex sociological issues with all the understanding and depth of an amoeba attempting advanced calculus.

 

To make ourselves feel better. Making ourselves feel better is more important than anything. It is vital to think that we know the answers to the world's problems, and the simpler and more crude the proposed solution - in other words, the more detached from objective reality - the better. Yeah, that's what we'll do! Sounds like a plan. Eureka, indeed!

 

-MKL

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

There is real discrimination against groups of people, usually by groups in power against groups not in power. There is also discrimination within all groups favoring some and disfavoring others for reasons of personality, attractiveness, intelligence, charisma, etc. In other words, within a group of white males, one white male who is less qualified will get picked for a promotion over another white male who is more qualified because the chosen one is perceived as being a better "fit" for the job. The first type of discrimination is "unfair" while the other is "just life."

 

I feel blessed that because of my birth within the power group, I have never had to worry about being discriminated against for any of the "unfair" reasons. All the discrimination I've had to face has been of the "just life" variety, primarily due to my somewhat ascerbic and introverted personality (as some of you may have guessed).

 

At times, particularly in dealing with women who feel bitter because they haven't been recognized for how wonderful and capable they truly are, I have felt like giving them a shake and saying, "Look, if you were a white male and acted the way you do, you wouldn't get promoted either! You don't try to make friends with the boss, or anticipate his needs, or do a whole host of other things more successful people do to get ahead." (I have resisted the urge)

 

I recognize that minorities and women have a variety of problems in acting like "white males" in order to get ahead, such as being perceived as uncle Toms or in the case of women, as coming on to the boss. I'm not sure how to solve these issues, but I do know that in any group, the more successful people are those who anticipate the needs of the boss and help him to solve his problems. That, in fact, is how I managed to achieve my small measure of success, despite my nasty personality. I suspect the long range solution is for minority groups to start their own businesses, and after a time the white males they hire will have to learn to whistle their tune, rather than vice-versa.

[beemerman2k]

To make ourselves feel better. Making ourselves feel better is more important than anything. It is vital to think that we know the answers to the world's problems, and the simpler and more crude the proposed solution - in other words, the more detached from objective reality - the better. Yeah, that's what we'll do! Sounds like a plan. Eureka, indeed!

 

-MKL

 

 

Brilliant post and excellent timing.

 

This has been a very tough post to engage in, but i want everyone here to know that in some strange and twisted way, I LOVE THIS THREAD!

 

Actually, its not so strange and twisted. My goal in starting this topic was to find answers, to get to the heart if the racial divides that stain our great nation. To reach that goal, i had to decide that getting there is more important than hearing self assuring messages that validate my own assumptions on the problem we face. I had to be willing to open myself up to some awfully tough criticisms, and awfully tough criticisms came my way, too -- Ouch!

 

I draw great inspiration from that great Jewish teacher we call Jesus of Nazareth. As i have already cited before, Jesus encourages us to FIRST take the plank out of our own eyes, then we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brothers eye. I hope that i have deminstrated, be it ever so difficult, that i am open to having my planks, both as an individual and as a representative of the black American race/ethnic group, identified and removed by everyone in this thread. It hurts, it has hurt, and it will continue to hurt. That pain, however, pails in comparison to the pain i see everyday caused by our inabilities to get past this issue. In the black comminity i see anger and rage against a white enemy, real or imagined, that prevents people from being able to rise above their circumstances.

 

Sometime ago, we bought our first house, it was a beautiful house in an all white neighborhood. I had never lived in such a community before, so my wife and i were very nervous about how we would be recieved by the neighbors. We did not want ti come home and find eggs all over the house and racial slurs painted on the house.

 

Well, wouldnt you know our neighbors couldnt have been more welcoming! We were very surprised by this. So we began to ask ourselves why we had such great reservations to buy the house in the first place? The local, nightly news, thats why. They constantly briadcast these kind of stories where this very kind of thing happens, and therefore, blacks learn that they cannot move too far up the ladder or else...

 

Bad lesson, wrong message, terrible consequences. But our collective false notions of reality is the problem, and we have to be open, willing to allow others to help us with the planks in our eyes. Sure, we could blame the media, and they are certainly a factor, but their reports wouldnt go very far if they didnt speak to our own understanding of reality as it already exists.

 

So here is my question to all of you (you dont have to answer it here, but if you want to see yourself as part of the solution rather than part if the problem, you must answer it to yourself), are you willing to undergo the pain of asking others to help you to identify the specks that are no doubt in your eyes?

 

If you feel you do t have any specks in your eyes, then you absolutley are part of the problem! What is our goal here: to, as Moshe points out, "feel good" or to solve this very difficult problem that plagues us all, even if that means some huge personal discomfort? Are you ready to entertain criticism -- no, to welcome criticism -- in an effort to gain understanding? That doesnt mean agree. Agreement isnt necessay, understanding is. Agreement wont happen unless and until you begin to see the truths of the criticims being lived out in daily life.

 

So thats my question to everyone here.

[BFish]

What's interesting about this thread is the similarity to the discussions going on in central florida. The storyline is dominating the print media as well as televison. town hall type meetings with local leaders are occuring in most municipalities. civility has been remarkably present at these meetings. what you all see are the marches and media events with national leaders.

 

after the lull following the casey anthony debacle the media outlets are reaping the rewards of this tragedy (along with the political campaigns). Would not say that the locals are too enamored with the coverage and events.

 

not participating in this threads discourse, but as a local who lives in central florida, it's very interesting to read the mostly intelligent thoughts of the bmwst community. the real world is in all our backyards.

[Ken H.]

This thread has sort of morphed/matured from one about the Trayvon Martin case, to one about racism, stereotypes and prejudices. With a bit of a presumption that such was a factor in this case (a factor that I happen to believe is true (but not the only factor), but has yet to be proven). But to address the question, what can be done about it? Here’s my take FWIW...

 

I think we as individuals, and as a society, need to quit denying that people are different. To cut right to the point – a black male in America IS different than a white male in America. (Before you (no specific "you") get all incredulous, please keep reading. If at the end if you think I’m full of BS, it’s fair game to call me out.) A black male’s genetics are different than the white person’s. In the same sense that all of us vary from one another genetically. A Hispanic's life experiences are different than a Caucasian’s, or that of any other identifiable group. Those things and more mold him (I’m saying “him” but of course all of this is true for females too) into who (s)he is. It’s true for ALL OF us. Each of us are different products of the path we’ve lead since the moment of our conception. Note I’m not saying inferior, I’m just saying different. I can’t fully relate to James’ life, or Tim’s, or anyone else’s any more than they can fully to mine as a software design project manager living in Canada.

 

We've spent vast amounts of social resources over the last decades trying to erase our differences. Trying to convince ourselves and create a society where all men are equal. Trying to become colour blind. And in this context I mean “colour” not just in the sense of skin colour, but in the context of the many differences we try, and fail to erase. Or at the very least ignore. A goal at which, by and large, we’ve failed at miserably. (This is not just an American phenomena BTW, take the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to name but one. But for now I’ll stick to a North American context.)

 

Sure some of the major transgressions/obstacles have been (as the should have been) removed; slavery, right to vote, restrictions on religious beliefs (mostly), etc. But the undercurrent of (s)he’s ____________ white/black, gay/straight, weird/normal, conservative/liberal, short/tall, (fill in any stereotype here), and one of those choices is a bad thing; is alive and well.

 

We’re getting no where. We vacillate between making some progress, codified civil rights for example, to steps backwards (“English Only” laws come to mind), all the while mostly with our heads in the sand saying the differences we see aren’t really real. Get beyond your prejudices, get the plank (or speck) out of your eyes (to borrow James’ metaphor) and you’ll realize we’re all the same, is the mantra. I call BS.

 

It’s time for a different approach. It’s time to recognize that ‘underneath it all we’re all the same', is just plain not true. And here’s the real point I’m getting to – That’s a GOOD thing!

 

One of humans’ greatest strengths, maybe as a species our biggest one, is our ability to look at a issue, a problem, a situation, an opportunity, any subject, from many different angles, perspectives, points of view. We test possible solutions, discard what didn’t work, think through what we did that worked, what didn’t, get different inputs, brainstorm some more, try something different and keep going until whatever it is, is figured out. Be it a small daily task at work, space exploration, or how to create a country/society/government where none existed before.

 

But all of that is only possible, the core reason we progress, because we ARE all different. Because we DON’T look alike, grow up alike, are educated alike, have interest alike, and most importantly – don’t think alike. We each have slightly, sometimes greatly, different ways of looking at things. And out of that comes progress. Out of that came why were not still sitting in caves banging together rocks in the exact same way we banged them together a few million years ago. The fish swims the exact same way he did 3 million years ago. (Well not exactly bur relative to the pace of change in humans, by and large he does.) The fish doesn’t have the ability of reasoning things differently that we humans have.

 

It’s time to embrace that. It’s time to quit trying to be alike. It won’t work anyway. It flies in the face of, denies who we are as species.

 

Rather, we need to acknowledge, publically acknowledge, but more importantly embrace what has been true all along – people are different and that’s a GOOD thing! It’s what makes where we are as a species on the planet, how much we’ve evolved, and at the speed we’ve done so; possible (warts and all) at all.

 

But to do so takes tremendous humility. It takes getting out of this mass “I’m right, you’re wrong” mind trap we’ve fallen into. It takes an active effort to quit trying to identify and promote the ‘one true way’, the one true social/economic/political model, religious ideology, whatever, that seems to be the agenda of so many today. “My way or the highway” seems to be the battle cry of too much of the human agenda these days. Rather it takes an active effort to change the dialog from, ‘why I’m right and your wrong’ to, ‘I consider your point, what needs to change so we can together move forward?’

 

The day every human becomes just like every other one, is the day we no longer progress. The day, in a very real sense, we cease to be human. I think our emphasis over the last 100 years or so on striving for that homogeneousness has been counterproductive. It’s actually inhibited our ability to progress.

 

Someone once said (can’t remember who), think how boring music would be if we could all play the violin. There’s much truth in those words.

 

It’s time to quit pretending we’re not different from one another. It’s time to start embracing the fact that we are! Much good will come out of it.

 

Thanks for reading my rambling.

 

[Agent_Orange]

This might be a thread hijack, but what do we think of first amendment rights of 'first responders'.

 

 

 

http://www.local10.com/news/Miami-Dade-firefighter-investigated-for-Facebook-post-about-Trayvon-Martin/-/1717324/10904214/-/2r9orl/-/index.html

 

 

Yes, I think that 'knucklehead' would come to mind. And yep, it's my former Dept. I've met him, but never worked with him.

[pbharvey]

This might be a thread hijack, but what do we think of first amendment rights of 'first responders'.

 

 

 

http://www.local10.com/news/Miami-Dade-firefighter-investigated-for-Facebook-post-about-Trayvon-Martin/-/1717324/10904214/-/2r9orl/-/index.html

 

 

Yes, I think that 'knucklehead' would come to mind. And yep, it's my former Dept. I've met him, but never worked with him.

 

I think he has a right to say whatever he wants as long as he's not representing a county agency. I think his premise, though poorly stated, has some truth in it. The poor black urban family structure is the root cause of many of the urban black youths' problems. Young men generally turn out better when provided with a strong male role model, preferably the father.

[Quinn]

 

Quote:

"I and my co workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, s***bag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents," read the post.

 

Gee, if only he'd added, "and we should embrace this diversity." he'd be agreeing with Ken.

 

-----

 

 

[Kathy R]

........I think he has a right to say whatever he wants as long as he's not representing a county agency. I think his premise, though poorly stated, has some truth in it. The poor black urban family structure is the root cause of many of the urban black youths' problems. Young men generally turn out better when provided with a strong male role model, preferably the father.

 

I'm taking your summary of his statement and using it to illustrate a thought that occurs to me when I read conversations like this thread. I hope you don't mind pbharvey. My comments below are not directed at you in particular.

 

 

The poor black urban family structure is the root cause of many of the urban black youths' problems.

 

What came first?

The chicken?

Or the Egg?

 

Take any group; minimize their existence - generation after generation - and what do you get?

 

Take any child and remind them as often as possible that they and their parents are less than acceptable and what do you get?

 

Were it in my power to take folks and put them in another's shoes for a month I believe that I could solve most of the worlds ills. It is impossible to put yourself in another's place, completely, but you can try - really hard...or not at all.

 

 

 

 

[philbytx]

One can be "untrained", so I beg to differ......

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Quote:

"I and my co workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, s***bag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents," read the post.

 

Gee, if only he'd added, "and we should embrace this diversity." he'd be agreeing with Ken.

 

-----

 

 

Again, can we steer clear of linking the perspectives of public figures, who are not participating in this discussion and are therefore not here to clarify their position, with thread participants by name? Such associations can set up ugly and personal skirmishes in this thread.

 

A flagrant example of this idea would be like me saying to someone who i didnt agree with is, "gee, you and Joan Claybrook see eye to eye on that matter, dont you?". Now, what they may see eye to eye about might be that motorcyclists should wear helmets, but see how i just cast that view in the most negative light possible?

 

No one here is like that, but this is how it comes across, as a gross generalization for thr purposes of discrediting another. Its just not necessary.

[upflying]

Take any group; minimize their existence - generation after generation - and what do you get?

By minimizing their existence, I assume you mean dependency on entitlement programs? If so, that feeding trough has been very successful in minimizing the existence of a group of people.

[moshe_levy]

By minimizing their existence, I assume you mean dependency on entitlement programs? If so, that feeding trough has been very successful in minimizing the existence of a group of people.

 

I cannot presume to speak for Kathy, Bob, but paying women more for each out-of-wedlock baby they have was certainly a cause in the breakdown of the family structure for all people involved (not just some races).

 

But this program, however well intentioned, is but the tip of the iceberg. We do not need to relive what happened pre "Great Society" legislation, as I said earlier, in my parents' lifetimes. A horrific stain on the history of the country with ramifications that are still being felt today and may never be fully erased. I defer to Kathy's post where she advised to walk in someone's shoes. It is far easier not to try, but it solves nothing.

 

-MKL

[racer7]

Some random thoughts

1) I "know" nothing in the first hand sense about Martin/Zimmerman- only media stuff and that has clearly been slanted and in some cases deliberately so. Some of it has also been just plain ignorant..

2) One short bit of tape had a very terrified voice screaming for help. Whoever that was - was obviously very frightened.

3) I have a lot of faith in a group of my fellow citizens deciding the facts and outcome after the relevant information is presented in a courtroom. Comes from experience with large political focus groups where folks from different ends of the spectrum typically have little difficulty agreeing on a practical solution to a problem when all the facts are laid out. (Our national politics of uncivility is really about self interested political power, not problem solving for the country. I'd vote for a legislature picked by random number from registered voters as an improvement but that's another topic)

4) I own a fair number of weapons and have competed and hunted with all firearms types. I choose not to carry one for personal defense, not because I have qualms about my rights or abilities but because I find it extremely improbable that in the manner I live, any situation would develop where it would be useful. 3 lbs of metal on one's hip is a nuisance....

5) It is wise to be civil when firearms are visible- the consequences of a violent confrontation can go badly for either party. Some of the gun clubs I've belonged to have a bar on premises with, of course, the rule that no one goes there until shooting is over. Political discussions there can get pretty heated but they never get confontational. I don't fear others carrying weapons- if they're doing so legally, at a miniumum they've got a bit of training and no criminal record and aren't any danger to me- I don't plan to attack any of them...

6) Martin's alleged appearance wouldn't have caused me to react - its so common around here I'd be perpetually twitchy and for no reason at all. I'd have needed some overt action to justify calling the cops. Every interaction I've ever had with a young black male in gangsta garb has been polite and civil. Mostly, it makes me sad to see intelligent and often good looking young guys making such poor choices about their appearance and demeanor- ultimately its a life potential limiter for them. Takes nothing from me and doesn't threaten me.

7) Racial divides in this country are all too real and likely to persist for many generations to come. As long as they exist, variations of the Martin/Zimmerman episode will happen and the media will continue to play them up. Biologically, humans are clan/tribal animals much like the other great apes and tend to look suspciously at "outsiders"- so its a real challenge to get fully away from that tendency.

[Ken H.]

Quote:

"I and my co workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, s***bag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents," read the post.

 

Gee, if only he'd added, "and we should embrace this diversity." he'd be agreeing with Ken.

 

-----

 

I have not a clue what or how his (Miami-Dade County Captain Brian Beckmann) comments connect to my (most recent above) post.

 

Beckmann by his very depiction of urban youths and their families is sterotyping and profiling.

 

But what on the green earth has that got to do with recognizing the value of the differences in humans???

 

[Quinn]

I have not a clue what or how his (Miami-Dade County Captain Brian Beckmann) comments connect to my (most recent above) post.

 

Beckmann by his very depiction of urban youths and their families is sterotyping and profiling.

 

But what on the green earth has that got to do with recognizing the value of the differences in humans???

 

You are correct that this was aimed at your long post about valuing differences in people. I just wanted to point out that what Mr. Beckmann sees as differences doesn't have much value. Then again, I'm more of the tolerate diversity and celebrate commonality school of thought.

 

----

 

 

[MotorinLA]

If the jack@$$ behind the anchor desk had to worry about the consequences of his reporting, he might be a little less apt to crank out the half-truths and speculations that currently tend to plague our air-waves.

 

Motor's on a roll tonight. In fact, this gets my vote as "quote of the thread". Well, it'd be a toss up between this one, and the quote from the last post he entered

The jackwad behind the anchor desk is only a reader reporting what others tell him/her to say.

 

And as a LEO you know that what you say to the media would be considered the opinion of your department (which is why most departments that I know of have policies against officers making media statements, unless they are media liaison officer) and that your department/city/county/state would be held civilly liable for your statements. You also know that you could be sued individually, if you were acting outside of your department's policy. Of course, your department has MUCH deeper pockets.

 

SO YES, jackwad should be held responsible for his reporting and so should the media entity he/she represents.

[MotorinLA]

If the jack@$$ behind the anchor desk had to worry about the consequences of his reporting, he might be a little less apt to crank out the half-truths and speculations that currently tend to plague our air-waves.

 

Motor's on a roll tonight. In fact, this gets my vote as "quote of the thread". Well, it'd be a toss up between this one, and the quote from the last post he entered

 

Quote of the thread, eh? Nobody sees an issue with some gov't panel deciding what "truth" is and slapping sanctions on the media for reporting what it sees as lies? Really? You might want to glance above that second Amendment everyone's busy discussing and see what's printed there, and see how it jives with this suggestion.

 

I'm as frustrated as anyone with media nonsense, believe me. But that alternative is no alternative, as history clearly points out time and again.

 

-MKL

 

The Second Amendment has been found to have some limitations, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, when there is no fire. It is recognized that you are in fact not free to utter whatever you want, in certain settings. You may not falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, because your actions are likely to lead to injury or worse to those around you.

 

Why should this concept not be applied to the media?

 

Why are they free to yell, "RACIST MURDER!" in a nation already plagued by racial devide and tension, when they clearly have no real basis for making such a statement?

 

That was my point.

 

Our media is out of control, just ask the rest of the world.

 

Don't hide behind the Second Amendment and give the media a free pass.

[MotorinLA]

If Z felt threatened enough to shoot Martin, why could he not just wound him? Very sad.

 

Because a gun is not a less-lethal force option. It is likely to cause death. Thus, it is not deployed to wound, it is deployed to stop a threat. A threat that is likely to cause great bodily injury or death.

 

So, I guess the million dollar question should be, was Martin presenting a threat to Zimmerman that was likely to cause great bodily injury or death?

 

If yes, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin.

 

If no, then we have a problem.

 

Or at least we should have a problem.

[Selden]

The Second Amendment has been found to have some limitations, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, when there is no fire. It is recognized that you are in fact not free to utter whatever you want, in certain settings. You may not falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, because your actions are likely to lead to injury or worse to those around you.

 

Why should this concept not be applied to the media?

 

Why are they free to yell, "RACIST MURDER!" in a nation already plagued by racial devide and tension, when they clearly have no real basis for making such a statement?

 

That was my point.

 

Our media is out of control, just ask the rest of the world.

 

Don't hide behind the Second Amendment and give the media a free pass.

Just to clarify, I believe you are referring to the FIRST amendment to the Constitution, which protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government, not the second, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Distasteful as it may be in some cases, free speech is free speech, and no, I acknowledge very few limits in its use. Ted Nugent is as free to spew his nonsense as is Al Sharpton; Phil Maher as Limbaugh or Beck.

 

That said, I'm disturbed by what appears to be a growing lack of civility in our culture, especially in our political culture, and much of it seems to be driven by a 24x7 news cycle in which the media are constantly searching for stories to fill airtime and capture eyeballs. Maybe I'm just getting old.

[MotorinLA]

The Second Amendment has been found to have some limitations, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, when there is no fire. It is recognized that you are in fact not free to utter whatever you want, in certain settings. You may not falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, because your actions are likely to lead to injury or worse to those around you.

 

Why should this concept not be applied to the media?

 

Why are they free to yell, "RACIST MURDER!" in a nation already plagued by racial devide and tension, when they clearly have no real basis for making such a statement?

 

That was my point.

 

Our media is out of control, just ask the rest of the world.

 

Don't hide behind the Second Amendment and give the media a free pass.

Just to clarify, I believe you are referring to the FIRST amendment to the Constitution, which protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government, not the second, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Distasteful as it may be in some cases, free speech is free speech, and no, I acknowledge very few limits in its use. Ted Nugent is as free to spew his nonsense as is Al Sharpton; Phil Maher as Limbaugh or Beck.

 

That said, I'm disturbed by what appears to be a growing lack of civility in our culture, especially in our political culture, and much of it seems to be driven by a 24x7 news cycle in which the media are constantly searching for stories to fill airtime and capture eyeballs. Maybe I'm just getting old.

 

Err.. guess I'm burning the midnight oil a little too heavily and breathing the fumes... Yes, the First Amendment. Thanks for the correction.

 

Yet, as much as we detest placing restriction on the First Amendment, there are things that are held above it. Making threats against the president, joking about having a bomb at the airport, etc. So, we do in fact recognize that the First Amendment does not allow us to say absolutely whatever we want, at any given time.

 

There are times when people (media) really should exercize their right to remain silent, rather than their right to open their mouths and spew forth information that will do nothing but cause harm.

[moshe_levy]

There are times when people (media) really should exercize their right to remain silent, rather than their right to open their mouths and spew forth information that will do nothing but cause harm.

 

That's a key. The media exercizing judgement (not a "right" to stay silent, but judgement). However, they just spew based on what you watch, listen to, and read. If you want responsible jounalism, patronize it. Tell your friends and family to do the same. If you want sensationalism, which people apparently do, that is what they will get. Money and ratings talk.

 

Should the governent attempt to limit this? Many of us would argue, "NO!" with a capital N and lots of punctuation afterwards. Because that is no solution. Next time you want the government to limit speech, ask yourself how you'd feel if the OPPOSITE ideology you believe in were in charge of what you call "news." As much as we hold the fantasy that we're always right, eventually the other side also sits in the chair of power. Do you want THEM to decide what news is worth and what isn't? That is the test - your belief in the FIRST Amendment (first for a reason) - is the extent to which you would defend speech which you most disagree with.

 

Personally, I would fight for the right of Neo-Nazis to parade down my street. Once they were allowed to do that, I would fight everything they stand for with facts, reason, and history - a far safer and more convincing fight than government censorship, which is ALWAYS the first, worst, and most expansive step in securing ultimate power. In fact, the arguments for the First Amendment have not changed one iota since that FA was written - just as powerful today as ever. Put into context, that certainly cannot be said of the Second Amendment.

 

-MKL