Guest MattP Posted 15 July 2013 Posted 15 July 2013 The Mafia is mostly white. Are we saying white criminals are smarter than black ones?
leicsmac Posted 15 July 2013 Posted 15 July 2013 Are we saying white criminals are smarter than black ones? More organised.
Rincewind Posted 15 July 2013 Posted 15 July 2013 Well not long ago somebody that was involved with the top gangs died and at a gathering at his home after his death included government officials. Whether they were there as friends showing respect or there to make sure he was dead I will leave to others to speculate. He was known to be involved with corruption, drugs and other crime syndicates. But does that make them more intellegent? Not really. They come from established families that have plenty of money. Very hard to catch. It is easier to catch desperate people as they make more mistakes..
Rincewind Posted 15 July 2013 Posted 15 July 2013 More organised. That sums it up in far fewer words than my reply.
john doe Posted 15 July 2013 Author Posted 15 July 2013 Are we saying white criminals are smarter than black ones? its not that black and white
Mike Oxlong Posted 15 July 2013 Posted 15 July 2013 Apparently jury of 6 5 white and 1 hispanic All female And one of them is already sorting out a book deal!
Jordan Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 It's certainly harder to vote!Is it ever.The Mafia is mostly white.We are completely getting sidetracked here, but while the "Mafia" is mostly white, gang syndicates like the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and People Nation, and Jamaican posses, etc. are mostly black. Also, a quick web search shows that there are several crime organizations (defunct and extant) that even have the name "Black Mafia." These groups are well-organized.
ozleicester Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Bottom line, 1) this kid would not have been killed this way if he was not black. 2) This guy killed someone and got away with it.
MC Prussian Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Enter President Obama - the United States have now filed federal charges against Zimmerman: http://nationalreport.net/obama-files-federal-charges-against-george-zimmerman-following-acquittal-in-shooting-murder-of-trayvon-martin/
Zingari Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 It appears that White people are most at risk from racially motivated attacks. But I don't suppose guilt ridden whitey wants to hear this . http://www.independent.co.uk/news/most-race-attack-victims-are-white-1069502.html
Rincewind Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-gun-back_n_3598228.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=071513&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle
MC Prussian Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 On a sidenote, just hours before the verdict was reached, a white woman attacked black singer Lester Chambers at a festival. He had simply dedicated one of his songs to Treyvon Martin: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2300421/singer-attacked-trayvon-martin-dedication/?mobile=nc
purpleronnie Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 It appears that White people are most at risk from racially motivated attacks. But I don't suppose guilt ridden whitey wants to hear this . http://www.independent.co.uk/news/most-race-attack-victims-are-white-1069502.html Well thanks for posting a report from 14 years ago . And you do realise a lot of those 'racially' motivated attacks can often be between two white people...i.e english and scottish. A quote from that report The CRE report points out that, because of their smaller numbers, members of minority ethnic groups are still far more likely to be victims of racial attacks than whites.
Zingari Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Well thanks for posting a report from 14 years ago . And you do realise a lot of those 'racially' motivated attacks can often be between two white people...i.e english and scottish. A quote from that report sorry i just followed a link from a piece about Steven Lawrence and only saw today's date in the top left corner . I suppose it just shows how long the misinformation and debate has been ongoing though. As you say, racist attacks can be white on white , but they can also be black on black . There are many permutations and reasons for attacks , it's not always as easy as saying it's "racially motivated". I still think it's best to treat each individual crime on it's own merit ( if that's the word)though , and not try to make some pattern out of it .
Guest MattP Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 I suppose it just shows how long the misinformation and debate has been ongoing though. Ceratinly has, I'd guess if you questioned 100 random people most would still think a white person is more likely to be a racist thug than a non white. Incredible really when you actually look at the statistics properly.
leicsmac Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Ceratinly has, I'd guess if you questioned 100 random people most would still think a white person is more likely to be a racist thug than a non white. Incredible really when you actually look at the statistics properly. Not sure about this... But that said, crime is crime. It doesn't matter if the victim and the criminal is white, black or green. As Zing says, each should be treated on its own merit. A black friend of mine is as PO'd about this as anyone but he made a very good point about there being vastly more black-on-black killing in the US and no one really paying attention to that.
Guest MattP Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Not sure about this... But that said, crime is crime. It doesn't matter if the victim and the criminal is white, black or green. As Zing says, each should be treated on its own merit. A black friend of mine is as PO'd about this as anyone but he made a very good point about there being vastly more black-on-black killing in the US and no one really paying attention to that. Clear as day when you read the amounts of assualts commited to the amount of people in the country. Anyway back to the case....interesting read. http://unfashionista.com/2013/07/15/the-zimmerman-trial-a-guide-for-the-uk-twitchfork-mob/
leicsmac Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 Clear as day when you read the amounts of assualts commited to the amount of people in the country. Anyway back to the case....interesting read. http://unfashionista.com/2013/07/15/the-zimmerman-trial-a-guide-for-the-uk-twitchfork-mob/ Good article, pretty balanced too. As I said earlier on - Zimmerman acted rashly, and a young man tragically died as a result of a fistfight that could have been avoided, and a Constitution that allows anyone with ID and a few hundred pounds to walk around packing. But second-degree murder or manslaughter could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, so 'not guilty'. Bear in mind there is a vast difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'.
Harry - LCFC Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 I find myself in particular agreement with this paragraph "Trayvon Martin was the innocent victim of a tragic shooting. George Zimmerman should never have followed him. George Zimmerman should have obeyed the 911 despatcher. George Zimmerman should never have had a gun, and there should be gun control in America. Without that gun, the worst that would have happened was a fist fight. And please don’t point out to me Zimmerman had a legal permit. My argument is that gun distribution should be limited to the military and the police (“as part of a well formed militiaâ€, the words written out of the modern interpretation of the second amendment). Trayvon Martin, once he realised he was being followed, had EVERY RIGHT to attack George Zimmerman in HIS OWN self-defence." I really don't look favourably on possessing firearms at all but I can just about tolerate them if they are kept in the home. For me it's pretty criminal to take one onto the street - what does one intend to do with it exactly? I don't think I'd have convicted Zimmerman of murder but I would have liked to see him put in prison for holding a firearm with an intention of using it if the 'need' arose. As it's been repeated by many people, this would've been such a minor incident had that disgusting item been kept where it should've been.
purpleronnie Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 I find myself in particular agreement with this paragraph "Trayvon Martin was the innocent victim of a tragic shooting. George Zimmerman should never have followed him. George Zimmerman should have obeyed the 911 despatcher. George Zimmerman should never have had a gun, and there should be gun control in America. Without that gun, the worst that would have happened was a fist fight. And please don’t point out to me Zimmerman had a legal permit. My argument is that gun distribution should be limited to the military and the police (“as part of a well formed militiaâ€, the words written out of the modern interpretation of the second amendment). Trayvon Martin, once he realised he was being followed, had EVERY RIGHT to attack George Zimmerman in HIS OWN self-defence." I really don't look favourably on possessing firearms at all but I can just about tolerate them if they are kept in the home. For me it's pretty criminal to take one onto the street - what does one intend to do with it exactly? I don't think I'd have convicted Zimmerman of murder but I would have liked to see him put in prison for holding a firearm with an intention of using it if the 'need' arose. As it's been repeated by many people, this would've been such a minor incident had that disgusting item been kept where it should've been. Americans are quite paranoid, there are some laws that allow people to carry them around, some states have little to no laws at all and if you buy a gun you can take it anywhere you want, some states say the weapon has to be concealed others don't. Its all very strange. Americans feel safe with guns even when there is little need for them to have one.
Jordan Posted 16 July 2013 Posted 16 July 2013 I can't disagree with the last few posts at all. Pro-"Right to keep and bear arms" hard-liners frequently suggest that if more Americans were armed, there would be less crime, as more Americans would be able to defend themselves against criminals and murderers. The Aurora theater shooting? If a moviegoer had a gun, he'd have been able to take down James Holmes. Sandy Hook? Armed guards in every school! Inner-city crime? Well, you just can't let only the criminals have their guns, right? A spate of robberies in your neighborhood? Keep a gun at home for your protection. I don't think it's a stretch to say there is a direct correlation to George Zimmerman bringing a gun into a heated situation and Trayvon Martin dying. The problem with RKBA fundamentalism (well, one of the problems) is that if Martin were also carrying a gun ("for his own protection,"), the situation doesn't end any differently: someone would have been killed. The author of the post MattP linked is most likely right about that. While it is true that gun violence is actually on a downward trend in the US (and has been for the past 20 years), the fact remains that the level of gun violence in the US is still unacceptably high. Despite that trend, on average, gun ownership seems to make people more prone to violence. A gun in a home is more likely to be used to kill or maim its owner or a family member (intentionally or accidentally) + be used in a suicide than deter an invader. I'm on my phone but I can grab some statistics the next time I have a chance. This stuff makes perfect common sense to me but there are a lot of Americans that honestly believe otherwise. Edit to add: the law in Florida--especially with how it has been interpreted in the Zimmerman trial--gives gun owners the right to approach individuals they seem suspicious in an aggressive manner and defends them if the other person is shot and killed, provided they don't actually commit a crime when approaching the other person. Sadly, if you're a black teenager in Florida, would "get yourself a gun for protection" not seem like good advice?
ozleicester Posted 17 July 2013 Posted 17 July 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JRDFlScd4E8
MC Prussian Posted 17 July 2013 Posted 17 July 2013 Four of the total six members of the jury that found Zimmerman innocent have now issued a statement following the public claim of another member of the jury, that Zimmerman had all the rightful reasons to defend himself against Martin. The four jury members declared "B-52" as a sole voice, not representing the whole jury. "We are all deeply affected by the death of Treyvon Martin". It has also been made public that three of the jury members initially had Zimmerman down as "guilty", but were unable to stand by that due to the restrictions by the Florida State Constitution (e.g. the "Stand Your Ground" rule). The American Attorney General, Eric Holder, has now presented a resolution at a recent NAACP meeting in order to tackle the inequalities between the different State Constitutions. "It is time to debate senseless laws that extend the right to self-defense, sowing violence in the process". http://news.yahoo.com/watch-eric-holder-address-naacp-convention-in-orlando-201616892.html
Leeds Fox Posted 17 July 2013 Posted 17 July 2013 Its all on the news over here in North Carolina... but there are plenty of details that don't seem to coming through that you have to dig for.... Specifically the media portrayal of Trayvon.... The photo that the BBC have been using of this cute little Trayvon was taken when Trayvon was 12 years old.. At the time of his very tragic death he was 17 years old, 6ft 2 and weighed 180 lbs- with completely different photos all over his social media of him trying to act all gangster style. He was also suspended from school for fighting ( again), was a drug dealer to his friends and had been picked up by the police ( again) just 2 days before his very sad death. None of that makes him a candidate to be shot of course, but some media outlets ought to be ashamed of themselves for portraying him as this cute little innocent boy and I think they should take a lot of the blame for whipping people up into a frenzy over this Zimmerman DID follow Trayvon, who he, h\as you rightly said, mistook him as a gang member from a gang who had been terrorizing that affluent gated community for some time... Trayvon then slipped away and came up behind Zimmerman and tackled him to the ground ( according to Zimmerman). Not sure where you got that it was Zimmerman who was tackled to the ground as there were no witnesses to the fight - there were only people who heard the fight. However, the injuries Zimmerman suffered, according to a forensic scientist and then also a doctor testified too were consistent with Zimmerman's account of trayvon being on top of him repeatedly slamming his head into the ground. It was then claimed that Trayvon tried to get hold of Zimmerman's gun. The jury were given the option of convicting Zimmerman of the lesser charge of manslaughter... so you have to ask the question why did the Jury ( some of whom were black), after hearing ALL the evidence, acquit Zimmerman of ALL charges? Zimmerman before the trial had already apologized to Trayvon's family, had already said to them if he could go back in time and change his decision to follow Trayvon then he would... again, other things not reported in the mainstream media.. Could I of done the same thing Zimmerman did? I really don't think I could... Carrying a gun is a massive game changer... but then again he wasn't just an average guy walking the streets, he was involved in a neighborhood watch scheme ( that he himself set up) and was out actively looking for people who might be causing trouble. George Zimmerman wasn't actually tried or (defended by his team) using the controversial ' stand your ground' law. It wasn't once mentioned during his trial.. It was however the reason why he wasn't arrested for 6 weeks after Trayvons death. The sad thing is of course that a young man has lost his life - a mother has lost her son and some siblings have lost their big brother. The man acquitted has had death threats and will have to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Its just all very very tragic and there really are no winners. This part of your post says two things to me... 1. That Trayvon was already guilty in the eyes of Zimmerman, and that he was probably a convenient target despite having no evidence to confront him. 2. It was actually Zimmerman who was the one out to cause trouble, rather than trying to find troublecausers. Zimmerman sounds like the type of vigilante that will always be innocent in the eyes of the US. Carrying a gun, actively looking for trouble makers. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the police's job, not a civilian with a gun!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.