That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
But not acknowledging the change is the same problem I am talking about with race relations. Without acknowledging that change, you cannot acknowledge advancement. Just like the original topic. By saying it gave a certain minorities rights and freedoms demeans the monumental change for America.
You cannot put up signs that will keep out a certain group. Now if you put the sign up and only enforce it on African Americans that is different. But do you honestly believe that type of behavior happens everywhere all the time? It isn't institutional racism, it is at its base, people always doing what people do all over the world...hating differences no matter how petty.
i'd like to know what they meant by "the right thing" ... are these people just looking at the dollars and cents? ... also, that survey says 63% of republicans still think it's the right thing to do ... so, there is some perspective here as well ...
you're right in that my example isn't institutionalized racism ... my point there was that people found other ways ... and some of those other ways are in the myriad of policies that exist ...
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
wow I'm floored...NBC ???? not Fox ??? no joking this is un-freakin-real but at the same time not superising... but NBC ?..did they just screw their credabilty all to crap or what ? this was one of the sorces I compared my Fox info to, they're all liars and bullshitters,who owns NBC ?
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
How the hell does something like this happen? Thats terrible. Are there still jobs where people check others work? The way the media has handled this case is scary.
Innocent until proven guilty was my understanding of the law.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Innocent until proven guilty was my understanding of the law.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Good points on all except: "I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone."
So what?
You could also say that I doubt Treyvon left his house looking to get in a fight with a person with a gun.
And simply identifying Zimmerman's attitude and past overzealous determination to "fight crime", he may very well be a super candidate that is out for confrontation.
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
How the hell does something like this happen? Thats terrible. Are there still jobs where people check others work? The way the media has handled this case is scary.
I'm surprised the other networks have not hammered NBC....Oh wait they all do this!!!
Innocent until proven guilty was my understanding of the law.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Good points on all except: "I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone."
So what?
You could also say that I doubt Treyvon left his house looking to get in a fight with a person with a gun.
And simply identifying Zimmerman's attitude and past overzealous determination to "fight crime", he may very well be a super candidate that is out for confrontation.
that combined with what we have seen on Trayvons tweeter posts(kill da mutherfuckes that lied to you) is 2 forms of trouble that collided, one over zellus rent a cop and a wanna be gangster.
Innocent until proven guilty was my understanding of the law.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Good points on all except: "I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone."
So what?
You could also say that I doubt Treyvon left his house looking to get in a fight with a person with a gun.
And simply identifying Zimmerman's attitude and past overzealous determination to "fight crime", he may very well be a super candidate that is out for confrontation.
True. I doubt either person left their home expecting or looking for what happened, some do feel that this is a racially motivated death though and I don't agree.
Also if we are going to examine attitudes and their 'past' we need to look into Treyvon as well to see if it gives insight on how he may have acted.
Again this brings us to the fact that there is not an objective witness. Digging up dirt on either person to prove a point only inflames the situation for either side.
Innocent until proven guilty was my understanding of the law.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Good points on all except: "I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone."
So what?
You could also say that I doubt Treyvon left his house looking to get in a fight with a person with a gun.
And simply identifying Zimmerman's attitude and past overzealous determination to "fight crime", he may very well be a super candidate that is out for confrontation.
that combined with what we have seen on Trayvons tweeter posts(kill da mutherfuckes that lied to you) is 2 forms of trouble that collided, one over zellus rent a cop and a wanna be gangster.
I call it bad credit if your black white or green and did you see the small spot in the news about the black panthers intimidating voters at the poles during the Obama vote, blacks(not all) are just as much to blame for racism as anybody else,when you commit a crime you go to prison no matter what color you are,more blacks are killed by other blacks than killed by whites...I really tired of aLL the whining about the poor black people..seems a ploy for more attention.
Godfather.
I said "same" credit scores, not worse credit scores and longer prison terms, not no prison terms. I agree, you have poor credit, no loan. You commit a crime, you go to jail. Just not be treated differently because of the color of your skin. And the Black Panthers intimidation of voters was how? Threats of physical violence? Exercising their freedom of speech? An isolated incident? Or was it a concerted attack on multiple polling places in republican leaning, wealtheir voting districts? Regardless, if it happened, it was wrong. Racism, practiced by anyone, is wrong regardless of who commits the act and who the victim is. My point is that blacks are victims far more often than whites. And I'd be willing to bet that more whites are killed by whites so I don't understand the point you were trying to make by your statement that more blacks are killed by blacks. Please help me understand. And what did you mean by "a ploy for more attention?"
Peace.
o.k. a little black history, did you know that black tribes sold and traded other blacks to the white slave traders ? did you know that whites left their farms to their slaves sometimes ? did you know some of those black farm owners also used slave labor and bought and sold slaves ? and blacks being victims far more than whites today ? try walking your white ass down ocean view at night...or any black neighborhood in the low income part of town then tell them they are racist if they call you white trash and kick your ass or shoot you,
this is now.. not the 1800's I never owned a slave and don't judge my friends or anybody else buy the color of their skin I call it like I see based on my own experiances,if a man is repectful toward me then I will treat them the same no matter what color they are, EACH person showes who they are by their actions not their color and people that keep pushing the racism isssue are helping to keep racism alive, the past is just that...the past we need to move forward and stop blaming people for things that happened 200 years ago.
Godfather.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history of slavery but what does that have to do with race relations today? I'm not talking about 200 years ago, I'm talking about the climate of race in the past 10 years or so. Nowhere in my responses have I said that you owned slaves or that you judged anyone by the color of their skin. Why do you assume that of me?
How do you know what color my skin is? And because your experiences are what they are, its totally not possible that in the 21st century in America someone would be treated completely differently based solely on the color of their skin? Whether applying for a car loan, housing mortgage, farm subsidies, job, etc. etc.
To suggest that the mere act of speaking about racism and race related issues somehow perpetuates racism itself is disingenious and ignorant. Should we all just pretend it doesn't exist? Should we just say, "oh well, anybody can be the victim of racism so lets not talk about it, discuss it or try to address it? And if race played no role in the Treyvon Martin case, why then did Treyvon's body sit in the mourge for 3 days as a John Doe despite his name appearing on the police report filed the morning after the shooting? That didn't happen 200 years ago.
I happen to live on the edge of what some would call the "wrong side of the tracks" and my children attend public schools as the minority. I have attended many after school hours events in these schools and have passed through these neighborhoods at night. Never have I been threatened or discriminated against or been called names. Like you, I treat others the way I myself want to be treated. But because that is my experience, it doesn't mean that someone of color who goes to the bank to get a loan, despite having good or excellent credit, is going to get the loan or pay the same interest rate a white person would pay or job, etc. etc.
sorry Halifax I got a little carried away...this issue always pisses me off.
the loan thing you talk about I have a hard time believing because lenders and banks are in the money business for one reason..money.. and if a customers credit is good then the loan will be made infact one of the reasons the banks went into trouble was because they loaned money to people that coulden't afford the payments and in san diego there was a news show about it with interviews of people loosing their homes and I saw mostly minoritys than whites on that show,that may not be the case everywhere tho.
there are minority incentives in just about everything these days from job hiring to colleges, people are always complaining about what minoritys don't get but seem to forget what they do get because that are minoritys.
sorry Halifax I got a little carried away...this issue always pisses me off.
the loan thing you talk about I have a hard time believing because lenders and banks are in the money business for one reason..money.. and if a customers credit is good then the loan will be made infact one of the reasons the banks went into trouble was because they loaned money to people that coulden't afford the payments and in san diego there was a news show about it with interviews of people loosing their homes and I saw mostly minoritys than whites on that show,that may not be the case everywhere tho.
there are minority incentives in just about everything these days from job hiring to colleges, people are always complaining about what minoritys don't get but seem to forget what they do get because that are minoritys.
Godfather.
No problem, apology accepted. Its a tough issue to discuss and one that, unfortunately, won't be going away anytime soon. Keep treating others the way you would like to be treated and make what difference you can in your part of the world. Time will tell whether justice will prevail in this case. I hope so anyway.
Regarding the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida:
_____
"Former Florida Sen. Al Lawson said it is time to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.
The 2005 bill was approved overwhelmingly by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush. It allows people to use deadly force when they believe their life is at risk.
Lawson voted for Stand Your Ground in 2005, as it received a unanimous vote in the Senate.
“The law was passed for the National Rifle Association,” he said. “I voted for the bill. It was a mistake.”
The rally came just an hour before Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll met with the Rev. Dr. R.B. Holmes, pastor of Tallahassee’s Bethel Missionary Baptist Church. Carroll and Holmes are the chair and vice chair of a task force put together by Scott to investigate the Stand Your Ground law." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/zimme ... ePage=true
_____
I wonder what he means by: "I voted for the bill. It was a mistake." Does he mean that he is remorseful that so many cases have been using this as a defense? Did he just not think about it when he voted for it? Makes me wonder about the competency of our senators.
I wonder what he means by: "I voted for the bill. It was a mistake." Does he mean that he is remorseful that so many cases have been using this as a defense? Did he just not think about it when he voted for it? Makes me wonder about the competency of our senators.
did you just use competency and senators in the same sentence!?
I wonder what he means by: "I voted for the bill. It was a mistake." Does he mean that he is remorseful that so many cases have been using this as a defense? Did he just not think about it when he voted for it? Makes me wonder even moreso about the competency of our senators.
did you just use competency and senators in the same sentence!?
Regarding the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida:
_____
"Former Florida Sen. Al Lawson said it is time to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.
The 2005 bill was approved overwhelmingly by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush. It allows people to use deadly force when they believe their life is at risk.
Lawson voted for Stand Your Ground in 2005, as it received a unanimous vote in the Senate.
“The law was passed for the National Rifle Association,” he said. “I voted for the bill. It was a mistake.”
The rally came just an hour before Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll met with the Rev. Dr. R.B. Holmes, pastor of Tallahassee’s Bethel Missionary Baptist Church. Carroll and Holmes are the chair and vice chair of a task force put together by Scott to investigate the Stand Your Ground law." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/zimme ... ePage=true
_____
I wonder what he means by: "I voted for the bill. It was a mistake." Does he mean that he is remorseful that so many cases have been using this as a defense? Did he just not think about it when he voted for it? Makes me wonder about the competency of our senators.
really?! the nra was involved in this law really?! i'm shocked!!
looks like i am not the only one who says zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant and that if you run with bulls sometimes you get the horn....sometimes the hunter gets hurt during the hunt...
COMMENTARY | Little by little, more details about the Trayvon Martin case are being made public. The latest involves what injuries George Zimmerman might have suffered in his confrontation with Martin.
Fox News in Philadelphia reports enhanced video images of Zimmerman at the police station on the night he shot and killed Martin show he had some head injuries. This would lend credibility to Zimmerman's story that he was in a struggle with Martin and shot him in self-defense. Meanwhile, Zimmerman has reportedly hired another attorney who believes his client's story of self-defense because he passed a voice stress-test administered by Sanford, Fla., police the night of the shooting, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Regardless of any injuries Zimmerman received that night, the evidence is irrelevant.
Martin is not with us to tell his side of the story. But there are some details we do know. He did not have a weapon that night, but Zimmerman had a gun. And Zimmerman followed Martin in his car because he looked "suspicious." Based on those few facts, put yourself in Martin's shoes and ask yourself "How would you have felt that night?"
I know how I would have felt. I'm walking home with candy and an iced tea minding my own business and someone in a car is following me. I'd be terrified. Who is this man? Why is he following me? Why is he getting out of his car to confront me? Since Zimmerman is not a police officer, I'm left with only one conclusion as my heart pounds and my adrenalin races: This man wants to hurt me.
And I had better fight for my life especially since this man has a gun. So as far as I am concerned, any injuries Zimmerman received are the result of Martin fighting in self-defense as he tried to stay alive against an armed man who stalked him.
I'm sure people will use Zimmerman's injuries as proof he was the one who had to defend himself that night. But when you think about this case from Martin's point of view, it's clear that Zimmerman was the hunter that night stalking his prey. And sometimes the hunter gets hurt.
.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
But now you're joining in on the assumption that he was a hunter, no?
We just don't know; how can we? - and commentary isn't doing anything to shed light on what happened. Opinions and speculation mean nothing with regard to the truth; to me, they are as irrelevant as this purported irrelevancy:
"Regardless of any injuries Zimmerman received that night, the evidence is irrelevant."
(I shall now stop using all forms of "irrelevance")
looks like i am not the only one who says zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant and that if you run with bulls sometimes you get the horn....sometimes the hunter gets hurt during the hunt...
COMMENTARY | Little by little, more details about the Trayvon Martin case are being made public. The latest involves what injuries George Zimmerman might have suffered in his confrontation with Martin.
Fox News in Philadelphia reports enhanced video images of Zimmerman at the police station on the night he shot and killed Martin show he had some head injuries. This would lend credibility to Zimmerman's story that he was in a struggle with Martin and shot him in self-defense. Meanwhile, Zimmerman has reportedly hired another attorney who believes his client's story of self-defense because he passed a voice stress-test administered by Sanford, Fla., police the night of the shooting, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Regardless of any injuries Zimmerman received that night, the evidence is irrelevant.
Martin is not with us to tell his side of the story. But there are some details we do know. He did not have a weapon that night, but Zimmerman had a gun. And Zimmerman followed Martin in his car because he looked "suspicious." Based on those few facts, put yourself in Martin's shoes and ask yourself "How would you have felt that night?"
I know how I would have felt. I'm walking home with candy and an iced tea minding my own business and someone in a car is following me. I'd be terrified. Who is this man? Why is he following me? Why is he getting out of his car to confront me? Since Zimmerman is not a police officer, I'm left with only one conclusion as my heart pounds and my adrenalin races: This man wants to hurt me.
And I had better fight for my life especially since this man has a gun. So as far as I am concerned, any injuries Zimmerman received are the result of Martin fighting in self-defense as he tried to stay alive against an armed man who stalked him.
I'm sure people will use Zimmerman's injuries as proof he was the one who had to defend himself that night. But when you think about this case from Martin's point of view, it's clear that Zimmerman was the hunter that night stalking his prey. And sometimes the hunter gets hurt.
.
His injuries are absolutely relevant to the case. It backs up his claim that he was attacked and it pokes holes in the image his family (understandably) wants the public to see of Trayvon as a helpless kid who was gunned down while begging for his life. It's odd: when ABC showed the video and falsely claimed that there was no evidence of any injuries (despite knowing that he had been treated at the scene before he was ever taken into custody), you and others pointed to that video as evidence that Zimmerman was lying. Now that the video has been looked at a little closer and it appears that there were injuries, his injuries are irrelevant. Now, I will agree that the injuries don't prove Zimmerman's innocence simply by their existence but they do show that the story we were initially fed by the media isn't 100% true. Given the way the media has skewed the facts in this case to create the impression of a hate crime against a timid, peaceful kid I can't imagine how anyone can still feel 100% certain that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime on that night.
His injuries are absolutely relevant to the case. It backs up his claim that he was attacked and it pokes holes in the image his family (understandably) wants the public to see of Trayvon as a helpless kid who was gunned down while begging for his life. It's odd: when ABC showed the video and falsely claimed that there was no evidence of any injuries (despite knowing that he had been treated at the scene before he was ever taken into custody), you and others pointed to that video as evidence that Zimmerman was lying. Now that the video has been looked at a little closer and it appears that there were injuries, his injuries are irrelevant. Now, I will agree that the injuries don't prove Zimmerman's innocence simply by their existence but they do show that the story we were initially fed by the media isn't 100% true. Given the way the media has skewed the facts in this case to create the impression of a hate crime against a timid, peaceful kid I can't imagine how anyone can still feel 100% certain that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime on that night.
zimmerman was a hunter. had he not pursued trayvon he:
1. would have sustained no injuries
2. would not have had any sort of physical altercation
3. would not have skinned his weapon
4. would not have killed an unarmed teenager
5. would not have become the pariah that he is now...
he acted like a cop, which he clearly was not.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
His injuries are absolutely relevant to the case. It backs up his claim that he was attacked and it pokes holes in the image his family (understandably) wants the public to see of Trayvon as a helpless kid who was gunned down while begging for his life. It's odd: when ABC showed the video and falsely claimed that there was no evidence of any injuries (despite knowing that he had been treated at the scene before he was ever taken into custody), you and others pointed to that video as evidence that Zimmerman was lying. Now that the video has been looked at a little closer and it appears that there were injuries, his injuries are irrelevant. Now, I will agree that the injuries don't prove Zimmerman's innocence simply by their existence but they do show that the story we were initially fed by the media isn't 100% true. Given the way the media has skewed the facts in this case to create the impression of a hate crime against a timid, peaceful kid I can't imagine how anyone can still feel 100% certain that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime on that night.
zimmerman was a hunter. had he not pursued trayvon he:
1. would have sustained no injuries
2. would not have had any sort of physical altercation
3. would not have skinned his weapon
4. would not have killed an unarmed teenager
5. would not have become the pariah that he is now...
But now you're joining in on the assumption that he was a hunter, no?
Yes, I believe it is fact that he followed the kid and got out of his vehicle to follow him, against the rules of his citizen crime watch group -- which is told specifically to never accost a target and not to carry weapons.
Treyvon was on his way home, he didnt start following Zimmerman. I keep asking myself, how could this have been avoided? How could Treyvon still be alive? If Zimmerman hadnt gone against citizen crime watch rules.
Comments
NBC has apologized for editing the 911 calls in a way to make it seem racist.
? ..are you kidding ? send a link.
Godfather.
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Looks like Sanford, FL has more problems than we know.
This would explain why Zimmerman carries a gun on him??? No?
i'd like to know what they meant by "the right thing" ... are these people just looking at the dollars and cents? ... also, that survey says 63% of republicans still think it's the right thing to do ... so, there is some perspective here as well ...
you're right in that my example isn't institutionalized racism ... my point there was that people found other ways ... and some of those other ways are in the myriad of policies that exist ...
(also, cats in hoodies?
wow I'm floored...NBC ???? not Fox ??? no joking this is un-freakin-real but at the same time not superising... but NBC ?..did they just screw their credabilty all to crap or what ? this was one of the sorces I compared my Fox info to, they're all liars and bullshitters,who owns NBC ?
Godfather.
My first reaction to seeing this story this morning was: would this have even made the headline news if it wasnt for the Treyvon case? Doubtful.
I think Zimmerman carries a gun because he's somewhat paranoid.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=186020
How the hell does something like this happen? Thats terrible. Are there still jobs where people check others work? The way the media has handled this case is scary.
Godfather.
Not by the POTUS, media or those who feel 'wronged'.
Justice is blind. Revenge is fueled by anger, hurt and hate.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened. However one thing I do feel very strongly about is I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone.
The parents of this young man have my prayers, no parent should have to bury their child.
Good points on all except: "I doubt Zimmerman left his home that night with the intention of killing someone."
So what?
You could also say that I doubt Treyvon left his house looking to get in a fight with a person with a gun.
And simply identifying Zimmerman's attitude and past overzealous determination to "fight crime", he may very well be a super candidate that is out for confrontation.
I'm surprised the other networks have not hammered NBC....Oh wait they all do this!!!
that combined with what we have seen on Trayvons tweeter posts(kill da mutherfuckes that lied to you) is 2 forms of trouble that collided, one over zellus rent a cop and a wanna be gangster.
Godfather.
True. I doubt either person left their home expecting or looking for what happened, some do feel that this is a racially motivated death though and I don't agree.
Also if we are going to examine attitudes and their 'past' we need to look into Treyvon as well to see if it gives insight on how he may have acted.
Again this brings us to the fact that there is not an objective witness. Digging up dirt on either person to prove a point only inflames the situation for either side.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history of slavery but what does that have to do with race relations today? I'm not talking about 200 years ago, I'm talking about the climate of race in the past 10 years or so. Nowhere in my responses have I said that you owned slaves or that you judged anyone by the color of their skin. Why do you assume that of me?
How do you know what color my skin is? And because your experiences are what they are, its totally not possible that in the 21st century in America someone would be treated completely differently based solely on the color of their skin? Whether applying for a car loan, housing mortgage, farm subsidies, job, etc. etc.
To suggest that the mere act of speaking about racism and race related issues somehow perpetuates racism itself is disingenious and ignorant. Should we all just pretend it doesn't exist? Should we just say, "oh well, anybody can be the victim of racism so lets not talk about it, discuss it or try to address it? And if race played no role in the Treyvon Martin case, why then did Treyvon's body sit in the mourge for 3 days as a John Doe despite his name appearing on the police report filed the morning after the shooting? That didn't happen 200 years ago.
I happen to live on the edge of what some would call the "wrong side of the tracks" and my children attend public schools as the minority. I have attended many after school hours events in these schools and have passed through these neighborhoods at night. Never have I been threatened or discriminated against or been called names. Like you, I treat others the way I myself want to be treated. But because that is my experience, it doesn't mean that someone of color who goes to the bank to get a loan, despite having good or excellent credit, is going to get the loan or pay the same interest rate a white person would pay or job, etc. etc.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
the loan thing you talk about I have a hard time believing because lenders and banks are in the money business for one reason..money.. and if a customers credit is good then the loan will be made infact one of the reasons the banks went into trouble was because they loaned money to people that coulden't afford the payments and in san diego there was a news show about it with interviews of people loosing their homes and I saw mostly minoritys than whites on that show,that may not be the case everywhere tho.
there are minority incentives in just about everything these days from job hiring to colleges, people are always complaining about what minoritys don't get but seem to forget what they do get because that are minoritys.
Godfather.
No problem, apology accepted. Its a tough issue to discuss and one that, unfortunately, won't be going away anytime soon. Keep treating others the way you would like to be treated and make what difference you can in your part of the world. Time will tell whether justice will prevail in this case. I hope so anyway.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
_____
"Former Florida Sen. Al Lawson said it is time to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.
The 2005 bill was approved overwhelmingly by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush. It allows people to use deadly force when they believe their life is at risk.
Lawson voted for Stand Your Ground in 2005, as it received a unanimous vote in the Senate.
“The law was passed for the National Rifle Association,” he said. “I voted for the bill. It was a mistake.”
The rally came just an hour before Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll met with the Rev. Dr. R.B. Holmes, pastor of Tallahassee’s Bethel Missionary Baptist Church. Carroll and Holmes are the chair and vice chair of a task force put together by Scott to investigate the Stand Your Ground law."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/zimme ... ePage=true
_____
I wonder what he means by: "I voted for the bill. It was a mistake." Does he mean that he is remorseful that so many cases have been using this as a defense? Did he just not think about it when he voted for it? Makes me wonder about the competency of our senators.
did you just use competency and senators in the same sentence!?
:?
Fixed.
really?! the nra was involved in this law really?! i'm shocked!!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-a ... t-time-out
http://www.grantland.com/podcasts
George Zimmerman's Injuries Are Irrelevant
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmermans ... 00943.html
COMMENTARY | Little by little, more details about the Trayvon Martin case are being made public. The latest involves what injuries George Zimmerman might have suffered in his confrontation with Martin.
Fox News in Philadelphia reports enhanced video images of Zimmerman at the police station on the night he shot and killed Martin show he had some head injuries. This would lend credibility to Zimmerman's story that he was in a struggle with Martin and shot him in self-defense. Meanwhile, Zimmerman has reportedly hired another attorney who believes his client's story of self-defense because he passed a voice stress-test administered by Sanford, Fla., police the night of the shooting, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Regardless of any injuries Zimmerman received that night, the evidence is irrelevant.
Martin is not with us to tell his side of the story. But there are some details we do know. He did not have a weapon that night, but Zimmerman had a gun. And Zimmerman followed Martin in his car because he looked "suspicious." Based on those few facts, put yourself in Martin's shoes and ask yourself "How would you have felt that night?"
I know how I would have felt. I'm walking home with candy and an iced tea minding my own business and someone in a car is following me. I'd be terrified. Who is this man? Why is he following me? Why is he getting out of his car to confront me? Since Zimmerman is not a police officer, I'm left with only one conclusion as my heart pounds and my adrenalin races: This man wants to hurt me.
And I had better fight for my life especially since this man has a gun. So as far as I am concerned, any injuries Zimmerman received are the result of Martin fighting in self-defense as he tried to stay alive against an armed man who stalked him.
I'm sure people will use Zimmerman's injuries as proof he was the one who had to defend himself that night. But when you think about this case from Martin's point of view, it's clear that Zimmerman was the hunter that night stalking his prey. And sometimes the hunter gets hurt.
.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
We just don't know; how can we? - and commentary isn't doing anything to shed light on what happened. Opinions and speculation mean nothing with regard to the truth; to me, they are as irrelevant as this purported irrelevancy:
"Regardless of any injuries Zimmerman received that night, the evidence is irrelevant."
(I shall now stop using all forms of "irrelevance")
His injuries are absolutely relevant to the case. It backs up his claim that he was attacked and it pokes holes in the image his family (understandably) wants the public to see of Trayvon as a helpless kid who was gunned down while begging for his life. It's odd: when ABC showed the video and falsely claimed that there was no evidence of any injuries (despite knowing that he had been treated at the scene before he was ever taken into custody), you and others pointed to that video as evidence that Zimmerman was lying. Now that the video has been looked at a little closer and it appears that there were injuries, his injuries are irrelevant. Now, I will agree that the injuries don't prove Zimmerman's innocence simply by their existence but they do show that the story we were initially fed by the media isn't 100% true. Given the way the media has skewed the facts in this case to create the impression of a hate crime against a timid, peaceful kid I can't imagine how anyone can still feel 100% certain that Zimmerman is guilty of any crime on that night.
1. would have sustained no injuries
2. would not have had any sort of physical altercation
3. would not have skinned his weapon
4. would not have killed an unarmed teenager
5. would not have become the pariah that he is now...
he acted like a cop, which he clearly was not.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree, and in addition
Yes, I believe it is fact that he followed the kid and got out of his vehicle to follow him, against the rules of his citizen crime watch group -- which is told specifically to never accost a target and not to carry weapons.
Treyvon was on his way home, he didnt start following Zimmerman. I keep asking myself, how could this have been avoided? How could Treyvon still be alive? If Zimmerman hadnt gone against citizen crime watch rules.