Quote:

---

If Martin had had a gun, he would have had every right to shoot Zimmerman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

No one has the 'right' to STALK anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Its just easier to find a scapegoat, instead of actually fixing the problem. Such is the way of idiots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Not shocking. Not in the least. I expected as much.

"You live behind the ivory walls. What do you know of real life?"

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:


I get a kick when idiots with no history, no experience, no knowledge, try to talk like they know what is going on.

This is something you have no intelligence on. Keep to talking about Apple, and niche music, hipster.

Stick to what you know, and stop making a fool of yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The issues here are not racism, or gun-control, or stand-your-ground laws.

The issue is that there is a perception that a certain group (or groups) are dangerous. For the most part, its earned... but its also cultivated.

Then, thrown into the mix, is the idea that "clothes make the man". Combine the 2, a perceived dangerous group, in clothing that promotes said image of savagery...

along with a man who is determined to keep his area safe...

and this is what happens.

I won't pretend things like this won't happen in the future.... but a solution will require a shift in culture of said group.

Culture X needs to radically alter their behavior, and goals.

---

Quote:

---

I wonder what would have happened, if it had been an asian kid. Asians are not known as being an overtly dangerous group.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if the kid was asian, and wearing gangster gear (Fubu, hoodie, Tims... whatever) would this have turned out the same? It might have.

Its what I was talking about before. Stereotypes don't just happen. Sometimes its made up to make one group feel superior to the other...

and other times its "earned" in that enough of "outsiders" have observed certain behaviors by a group that it can be reasonably given.

---

Quote:

---

The answer here might simply be that this kid, being part of certain group through no fault of his own (birth), wearing clothing associated with the negative steretypes of said group, ran afoul of another man, who was bound and determined to keep his area safe from the negatives of said group.

In other words, this kid was a victim of the negative aspects (both perceived and vetted) of his grouping. Wearing clothing that added to said negative view.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe the group should work to change its perception by the other groups living with and near it.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, we are all individuals. As individuals we can be awesome. However, we are each judged daily... by the clothes we wear, our hairstyle, the way we walk, the way we talk,

add to that, the things we cannot change.

So, you are grouped especially by the things you cannot change. Maybe, you should work towards promoting a good image of said group.

---

Quote:

---

Before you jump on me, I'm not saying its this kids fault for being shot. Far from it. I'm pointing out that there were aspects outside of him, that helped lead to this. He got caught up in them with tragic results.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You are on your own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

I take offense to that.

---

Hello,

I also found it offensive.

Quote:

---

"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.

---

In this case, the victims are those who are murdered because of the gross generalizations you mention. You put the onus of culture change on them, so that they are no longer murdered because of what people assume about them.

Quote:

---

Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?

---

What an interesting leap. Obviously if I dress in a manner proscribed to a profession, I will be determined to be of that profession. The iconic nature of police uniforms is actually protected by law in some places.

Quote:

---

Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception.

---

Yes, my wife's beloved hoodies, by your example, mark her as a gangsta who may be pre-emptively murdered by some shlub trying to protect his neighborhood.

Meanwhile the culture of gun-toting neighborhood commandos is given a pass for jumping to conclusions about people due to the color of their skin and choice of clothing.

Where is the talk about the culture of the aggressor? The culture of might-makes-right, assumptions are warranted, I am a yahoo cowboy, and God can sort em out?

If that culture changed, then all the other cultures and people who enjoy types of fashion would be safe. Including my poor wife and her gangsta hoodie.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place.

---

There was no stalking?? What planet are you living on? Zimmerman said by his own account that he stalked Martin.

Quote:

---

There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin.

---

Sure, but if you stalk somebody in the dark they have a right to feel threatened and to protect themselves with force under Florida self-defence laws.

Quote:

---

What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?

---

See above. By the way, I love how you've filled in all the blanks in this case yourself. You've established that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman have you? Based on what?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So, black teenagers should stop wearing hoodies. The problem is this: how do gangsters dress? LIKE YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. Was Martin wearing colors, bandanas, anything that would actually distinguish him as a gang member??? Not on your life.

It's not the clothing that makes white folks think "gangster," it's black people in the clothing. Wolf wants black people to dress like Urkle or Bill Cosby so as not to get shot at. This is disgusting. And women who wear a dress that falls more than a hand's width above the knee are asking to be raped. It's the same specious logic. And so, because a significant number of violent bastards in our culture think this way, then their multitudinous potential victims should damn well act accordingly or be branded stupid and "asking for it?"

What in god's name is the readily available, cheap and practical alternative to the hoodie? Something, btw, anyone who shops at Old Navy--a notorious gang supply house--will own. So, okay, it's not racism, it's class and culture war. So, now if it isn't the race of the victim, it's the fact that the victim can't afford a $150 rain jacket from REI.

Pizmo, any argument that proceeds from the premise, "This is HOW things are" can and will be employed by the ruling class to keep the underclass "WHERE they are." It's a logical fallacy, it's an argument from authority (heh). The argument that black teenagers should change the way they dress to avoid getting shot at by random "good citizens" serves no one but those who would rather not be held accountable for their atrocious attacks on black teenagers. It doesn't serve you or me. And it doesn't serve Trayvon Martin's family.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Your statement is as intelligent as saying, "You can't judge a shark by the behavior of its species. So what if a shark has teeth that bite, and it shows what is known to be aggressive behavior! Turn you back to it and swim away. Being bitten is better than being cautious and acting in your own self-defense."

---

Hello,

You are wrong. Once again you create a framework for your argument that has no basis on the discussion. Your statement has massive logical fallacies.

Your logic is as follows: Gangsters are violent people who wear hoodies.

Hence: Everyone who wears hoodies is a violent gangster.

Which is not only logically incorrect, but OBSERVABLY incorrect as well. We all know that this same clothing is sold to gangsters and non-gangsters alike. Yet you still claim it is a correct assumption to assume "Person dressed X is obviously a gangster and I have to protect myself from their aggression or crime."

In fact, the problem is twofold. Not only are illogic leaps being made to reach conclusions which are observably false in many instances, but illogical responses are being made based on these illogical leaps. Even if your twisted thinking assigns a twisted identity to someone based on appearance, to then pursue escalation behavior with that person is ludicrous.

The problem isn't perception, it's laziness. This is because while you may have observed gangstas with hoodies, you have also observed non-gangstas with hoodies. But delving deeper is too much work, so it's easier to just slap the label on across the board. Then you excuse the behavior with, "It's just the way things are" thereby absolving yourself of any responsibility to change.

THEN after absolving yourself of such responsibility, YOU ACTUALLY ASSIGN THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS!

"They" should change so that you can continue to make your lazy assumptions. "You" can enjoy life the way it is.

Here's the way life really is. "They" aren't all the same. "You" can't be bothered. But you sure want to justify bothering "Them."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone.

---

Try telling Princess Di that....oh, wait. Never mind.

Quote:

---

But you know little Rappy, keep dreaming your little dream that Zimmerman was within his rights. That way when a rapist, mugger, car-jacker or robber corners a targeted victim and the victim fights back, you can always stick up for the rights of the criminal to shoot the targeted victim in 'self-defense'. Be loud and proud about it now. But don't forget to be consistent later. I will be posting quotes from you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll (as if)

Just one more thing - you may want to quibble about the word 'stalking'. Go ahead. No one here is using it in the legal sense, they are using it in the common parlance. But go ahead. The next time a rapist corners a woman, or a mugger follows a victim, or a carjacker walks up to a car stopped in traffic, we'll all remember that you defend that on the basis that you'd rather quibble about the legal definition of a particular word choice. Just so you're clear that this will be hung around your neck.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
From the beginning of this post...

"Trayvon a 17 year old African American boy was shot in a gated community where his father lives in Florida. He was shot by a self-appointed White Community Watch Captain who was walking around with a gun. Zimmerman the community watch person decided Trayvon looked suspicious."

Kwickos response, now: "Has anyone else noticed that Wulfie is the only one trying to make an issue out of the shooter's race, and the only one who keeps bringing it up?

I really don't care what the race of the shooter is; I care why he felt the need to stalk, harass, intimidate, and then murder a 17-year-old kid."

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
FWIW unless you are substantially Indian enough to belong to a tribe, Hispanics are counted as Whites. After all, their heritage is Spain, which, last I checked, is White. Just not Anglo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
FWIW unless you are substantially Indian enough to belong to a tribe, Hispanics are counted as Whites. After all, their heritage is Spain, which, last I checked, is White. Just not Anglo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Now according to Wulfie, and little Rappy 'and' Troll, by virtue of being on a sidewalk or street, the stalker is entitled to be wherever he wants to be doing whatever he wants to do --- even if it happens to be following a woman and cornering her on a deserted street. After all, it's a public (or at least commonly accessible) street --- right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Wulf idolizes figures like Captain America, but he behaves much more like Captain Hammer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Obviously you have never been to Chinatown, or heard of the Yakuza.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Now if you were to talk about HERITAGE - about the culture you were brought up in, the beliefs you absorbed, the customs you followed - I'd be rapt. THAT happens to be a self-identified group that sets itself apart from others. And I would want to know why they thought they were different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone."

"Try telling Princess Di that....oh, wait. Never mind."


Paparazzi CONVICTED of invading Diana's privacy | Mail Online

Oh wait. Nevermind.

And what does this have to do with Martin?

Are you sure you don't want to bring out your sockpuppet? There is way too much FAIL associated with you at this point.

---