Another Innocent Dead 17 yr Old

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by canam

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.

The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.

White crime stats against blacks are so small to not even be reportable BUT ITS STILL WHITEY'S FAULT ! OH PS one year in Chicago 2009 they had like 500 murders in a WEEKEND ~~~~~ all BLACK !!! NOT A WORD SAID BY THE MEDIA or JD, he trolls for any anecdotal incident even when the guy aint white and comes with the fake rage ! like a lot of blacks do just to draw attention away from their own problems, same as they do with the phony republicans are racist claims ,when in fact its their Dem party!

If these are indeed the facts, then you can understand how a person can feel threatened when they see an SUV with four blacks youths playing loud music at a gas station.

Prejudice can't be prejudice unless there is at least a small chance of truth to the fearful or evil or even hopeful thought-- depending on one's perception of the situation.

It is basic human, maybe even animal, instinct to have prejudices.

It is un-American to act on them, well at least it should be.

Eye witness accounts that the youths were actually trying to leave once the shooting began, but out of his fearful prejudice, or out of his angry prejudice--- either way there was prejudice in his actions, he shot multiple at a vehicle 8 times or more.

His groundless but prejudicial actions cost an innocent 17 year old his life-- a 17 year old black boy who had no control over the color of his skin, in a country where he has the freedom to play his music loudly. He was murdered by a very mature, but fatally prejudiced white man who heard the music, saw the kid, and decided to try to deny this American minor his right to pursue happiness.

If he really felt justified in his murder because he really did see them pull a shotgun out, he wouldn't have even run-- or if he had run, he would have called the police himself. However, that's not what happened in this case.

Initially, zim felt justified in his murder due to his misunderstanding of Florida's SYG law. However, he and his lawyers realized that he was indeed mistaken and they quietly changed their tune.


Now after committing his prejudicial murder, this other guy wants to try to use the SYG law to defend himself.

Hopefully, he will not succeed.
There was no shotgun, there was no real threat.

The only threat was in his dark and prejudiced heart.

This is how racial prejudice is different from racism.
Racism is corporate and systemic. Prejudice is personal and individualized.

Had this 17 year old been white, he wouldnt't have died that night at the hands of that man in that situation. How can I confidently make this statement? Look at history, look at the facts.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Gun control really has nothing to do with SYG. If you truly understand the implications of SYG you'll understand that it really has nothing to do with Gun Control or even the Castle Doctrine which it's been compared too. I'm staunchly pro-gun and staunchly pro-Castle Doctrine, and I know many who are as well but like me find Florida's SYG to be way to out there for them to support.

I am not really even real familiar with SYG (therefore am not arguing for or against) but think if someone tries to kill you, then you are generally justified in returning with deadly force.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If these are indeed the facts, then you can understand how a person can feel threatened when they see an SUV with four blacks youths playing loud music at a gas station.

Prejudice can't be prejudice unless there is at least a small chance of truth to the fearful or evil or even hopeful thought-- depending on one's perception of the situation.

It is basic human, maybe even animal, instinct to have prejudices.

It is un-American to act on them, well at least it should be.

Eye witness accounts that the youths were actually trying to leave once the shooting began, but out of his fearful prejudice, or out of his angry prejudice--- either way there was prejudice in his actions, he shot multiple at a vehicle 8 times or more.

His groundless but prejudicial actions cost an innocent 17 year old his life-- a 17 year old black boy who had no control over the color of his skin, in a country where he has the freedom to play his music loudly. He was murdered by a very mature, but fatally prejudiced white man who heard the music, saw the kid, and decided to try to deny this American minor his right to pursue happiness.

If he really felt justified in his murder because he really did see them pull a shotgun out, he wouldn't have even run-- or if he had run, he would have called the police himself. However, that's not what happened in this case.

Initially, zim felt justified in his murder due to his misunderstanding of Florida's SYG law. However, he and his lawyers realized that he was indeed mistaken and they quietly changed their tune.


Now after committing his prejudicial murder, this other guy wants to try to use the SYG law to defend himself.

Hopefully, he will not succeed.
There was no shotgun, there was no real threat.

The only threat was in his dark and prejudiced heart.

This is how racial prejudice is different from racism.
Racism is corporate and systemic. Prejudice is personal and individualized.

I think what people are trying to say is, in their own way, is that we cannot assume that prejudice led to this particular murder simply because the victim was African American and the murderer was Caucasian.

That assumption causes some to be defensive simply because the perception here is that "white on black" violence is always the product of racism or prejudice. While "black on black" violence or "black on white violence" is not.

It is very well possible prejudice led to the murder. It's very well possible that prejudice did not.

We do not truly know the intent unless the individual openly states he is a racial supremacist.

Let's take the concept of prejudice a little bit further and make it clear that prejudice does not exist solely along racial lines. If I see a 17 year old that gives off a "thug" persona, I assume he is a thug, whether he's an African American, white, or hispanic. I'm African American. I may be on my guard more if I see certain characteristics in an individual. Now thank God I have enough sense not to act on such notions but some people don't. I think many of my Caucasian brothers and sisters in the faith have a problem with people pointing out POSSIBLE prejudice when it comes down to white on black violence, while misunderstanding what prejudice truly is.

We don't know how many times black on black violence could have been due to similar circumstances as some of these white on black crimes. It's very possible that there have been times when black men could have jumped the gun and shot or harmed another African American male because they "looked" a certain way. I'll admit, there are certain circumstances where I will avoid gas stations, stores, shops, malls if it looks like there's suspicious activity. Yes, because I grew up with a very rough background there are certain signs I look out for and certain prejudices I'll admit that I have justifiably. Some of them are against people who share my skin color.

My point, we cannot bring up outrage against prejudices only when whites kill blacks or hispanics. If this killing was an unjust murder caused by the perpetrators prejudices there are plenty more I'm sure committed by blacks on blacks in similar situations and worse situations. There's no difference between "you're black and wearing a hoody so you must be a thug", which may have led to Martin's death and "you're black and wearing blue so you must be a crip" which has led to numerous black on black deaths of people I can name by name just in the DC area and I'm sure you've heard of it.

[Truthseeker]

Trialedbyfire

one problem is our biasness makes us wide sided by nature. I see just as much racism/prejudice from blacks as I do in whites. I jokingly have said I didn't know how white I was til I moved to the south.

We have to get to point where all racism chaps our hide not just when its against race we happen to be part of. People like JD seem to get in uproar when victim is black and other is white but wonder is the uproar any less when its black on white? Which by statistics happens more.

I wonder how it would be perceived by my black brother/sisters on AFF here if only posts I posted are of black on white crime as JD does with black victim only posts??

[Truthseeker]

BTW Trialedbyfire good post

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I am not really even real familiar with SYG (therefore am not arguing for or against) but think if someone tries to kill you, then you are generally justified in returning with deadly force.

Ok. I'm going to try to remember this off the top of my head because I don't have time to go look stuff up right now.

When the Trayvon Martin case came out the Florida SYG was the first law of it's kind in the United States. I didn't realize how different the law was until I actually read it. It was being compared to Castle Doctrine and supported the law because they believed that it would be "tough on crime". However I've found it to be the exact opposite and actually a very reckless law.

Every state recognizes self-defense as a legal defense in a murder case. However, in every state in the union the burden of proof is always on the defendant to prove the allegation that he acted in self-defense. As it should be. In most states the defendant must prove that he (1) did not initiate the confrontation unreasonably, (2) that he did not further aggravate the situation unreasonably, (3) that his fear of death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, and (4) that he was unable to flee without unreasonably exposing himself to threat of death or serious bodily injury. That's the case in most even conservative states. In some more liberal states the burden is hard but GENERALLY that's what is required of you to prove self-defense. Which I think is reasonable. You SHOULD have to prove that you were helpless and had no other choice then to use DEADLY FORCE, because it is deadly force.

The Florida Law however eliminates the need for the defendant to prove 3 out of 4 of those things listed. The defendant would only have to prove that he feared for his life reasonably. That's why it's called the "stand your ground law" because unlike in just about every other state conservative or not you don't have to prove that you at least made a reasonable attempt to escape from your attacker, or that you didn't start the confrontation in the first place. In addition the Florida Law states that the individual more or less must be considered "lawfully present" or not acting in anyway "unlawful" up to the attack/fight/altercation. The law if I was understanding it correctly when I was reading it and researching it actually makes it so no matter what the individual did before he used deadly force, if he thought his life was in danger prior to using deadly force he had the right to use it.

This has major implications. Let's say I start a random bar fight with a man I don't know in a bar in Florida, and the individual I start the fight with gets the best of me and I begin to feel that this man could kill me. Even if my fear is reasonable in most other states if I kill him, I'm still responsible for starting the fight in the first place. Let's say I'm randomly attacked in the state of Florida and I have a fear that an individual may kill me BUT I have a reasonable way of escape and may not have to use deadly force to evade. In every other state I'd have to evade to avoid the death of a life. Not in Florida.

It's kind of a wild wild west law that stems from the Castle Doctrine, which is a more widespread law and is far more reasonable. The Castle Doctrine allows and individual who's home is broken into to assume that the person breaking into their home has the intent to harm them and possibly kill them and to use deadly force when necessary. This is a perfectly acceptable doctrine simply because if you are breaking into my home I cannot assume that you will not do me and my family harm. The Castle Doctrine basically states that someone breaking into a home shows intent to do serious harm or kill the individuals inside, and that an individual DOES NOT have to flee their own home but has a right to defend their children and property.

This Florida Law extends that concept to... everywhere. Which is why it's so controversial, it basically can be interpreted to allow lawfully extremely reckless behavior.

[trialedbyfire]

By the way, yes by those standards I listed above if the cases are accurate as the media portrays it Florida Law vindicates both Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Dunn. Because of the SYG Law Dunn only has to prove he reasonably feared for his life, and really may not actually have to prove that. Some judges require the prosecution to have to prove that he DIDN'T have a reasonable fear for his life. Depends on your interpretation, which is why it took so long for the prosecutor in the Martin Case to file charges. The Martin case is a little bit more confusing because there was a scuffle involved, but Zimmerman under Florida Law if I understand the law correctly probably should get off. If it happened in any other state, that wouldn't be the case in either incident.

[Hoovie]

Would you agree If Zim was jumped and nearly knocked unconscious, and if there was a shotgun pointed at Dunn, they may have been justified irregardless of state or SYG law?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

I think what people are trying to say is, in their own way, is that we cannot assume that prejudice led to this particular murder simply because the victim was African American and the murderer was Caucasian.

Well, if you look at what I've been saying, you will find that I am blaming Florida's SYG law for the misunderstandings while acknowledging the history and even current social and racial attitudes that are shared by many people-- whether spoken or unspoken.

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

That assumption causes some to be defensive simply because the perception here is that "white on black" violence is always the product of racism or prejudice. While "black on black" violence or "black on white violence" is not.

It is very well possible prejudice led to the murder. It's very well possible that prejudice did not.

It was a white person who actually lives in Jacksonville, FL on this forum that made the observation that had the victim been playing Lynrd Skynrd, this would have never happened.

I agree 100% with that statement and can do so confidently because I live here in Florida.

Look at the situation. Young black males, playing their music loudly-- probably listening to Lynrd Skynrd or Trisha Yearwood, right? Or maybe, they were blasting Justin Bieber's latest hit? Because nothing is so irritating, nothing is even as threatening for some, than to see 3 or 4 black males sitting at the gas station and while blasting Justin Bieber!

Preposterous you say, but why I ask. Because, you remind me, the assumptions above (prejudices if you will) are not based on reality.

What's more realistic? 3 or 4 young black males sitting at the gas station, pulling up next to you at the stop light, even driving past your home, with rap music blaring and bass so obnoxiously loud you can feel it.

Aren't you irritated when it happens to you? How many times has it happened to you? If you could stop them, all of them, from doing it ever again, would you?

But, you think to yourself, I better practice wisdom here. I have my family with me and I really don't want any trouble so I'll ignore them and eventually they'll go away. I won't approach them because they might be disrespectful in their response, maybe even violent, and I don't want any confrontation with these people. So many young black males are so violent and you decide it is best to just let them be.

Besides, this loud music is just a fad-- eventually, this will stop happening.

Then in angry frustration you realize that it seems to never stop happening. In fact, to your chagrin, you notice one day that there is even a white kid blasting that same junk-- but he appears to be of the same mindset as the numerous black kids you've already seen doing the exact same thing. For some, you take your criticism of that white kid to a different place.

Look at the dummy trying to be black-- what a whi--er!

In that thought, there are so many layers of prejudice-- prejudice that is extremely difficult to unwire because your experiences have already built your frame of references.

Intelligence has it benefits and burdens.

One day, you think that you have the chance to influence 3 or 4 black youths who are blaring their Trisha Yearwood so obnoxiously loud at the gas station-- actually, we have already established that Trisha Yearwood is not a realistic music choice for this realistic narrative. You decide to take advantage of the opportunity to influence these guys to not play their rap music so loudly.

You're by yourself and you have your legal side arm on your person. You're in public, but you're on edge because these are black guys-- young black males, a group of them, blaring their music, their probably prone to violence because that's just the kind of black guys they appear to be. Style of clothes, style of music, you hear their laugh and you're confident that you've seen their type before and you know that this might be risky. Still, you approach them because you know you're armed and ready.


Humans have the ability to be prejudiced in many areas beyond race.
However, to attempt to assert that what happened in Jacksonville, FL happened without any racial prejudice would not be based on reality.

To state that it is impossible to know the heart or mind of the perpetrator is simply not true, unless he is mentally ill. He approached the kids about their music. He didn't like the results of his decision and the general public got a glimpse of this man's dark and defiled heart because of what he did.

Maybe he felt disrespected and angry so in a fit of range he decided that these black kids were not gonna get away with it this time.

Maybe in the course of the confrontation he initiated, he was so on edge because of who it was he was dealing with, he felt that the only thing to do was to shoot at these young black males before they shoot at him first.

Whatever the case, the results of his confrontation was not satisfactory and he shot up to 8 rounds at a vehicle that was playing their music too loudly.

Did he call the police himself immediately after it happened? No.
Did he call the police at all? No.
Well what did he do? He jumped into his vehicle and drove off.
Where and how was he caught? He was caught 3 hours south of location of the murder and that was only because a bystander who witnessed the murder memorized the perpetrators license plate and called the police on behalf of the stunned victims.

Now that he is caught, he will try to use Florida's Stand Your Ground law for his defense.

Yet we have a very good idea of his thoughts because we know what he did.

His actions should prohibit his ability to use the SYG law as his defense. Hopefully, the courts will give him, the family of the innocent victim, and even our society the justice that we deserve.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Would you agree If Zim was jumped and nearly knocked unconscious, and if there was a shotgun pointed at Dunn, they may have been justified irregardless of state or SYG law?

Not if zim started it-- then Martin is the one defending himself.

There wasn't a shotgun pointed at Dunn-- he's lying. Dunn committed his murder in public, with eye witnesses. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn and no one ditched a shotgun from their vehicle before the cops arrived.