George Zimmerman, the killer of young Trayvon Martin, was found 'not guilty'.

[deep]

continued

[maycocksean]

Perhaps you could think of more controversial title next time, deep?

[deep]

I made a slight modification, we'll see if this one makes it to 1000 posts.

[deep]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

You know what would really support your point of view? Show me a recent case where a white man was accused of killing a black man and was convicted. Or better yet, a case besides the OJ Exception where a black man was accused of killing a white person but was acquitted.

well, there is this case

Iraq War veteran killed; widow says Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is free pass for murder | ksdk.com

71 year old black man gets found guilty.

[Jive Turkey]

"A car parked in front of our house a few nights ago -- one we haven't seen before. We could not see in the dark. I promptly locked the doors, walked out to the car, asked the gentleman to roll down his window and told him to please take no offense, but we've had some break-ins in the area recently and I was going to have to ask him to move along. He moved along. (Not that I think it matters, but he was white.)

Two weeks ago someone from the neighborhood watch was out when a loud BANG went off. A guy was walking around in the neighborhood who wasn't from around here, and the neighborhood watch guy called out to him and questioned him. A car sped up and the guy got in and drove away. I don't think our neighborhood watch guy was wrong for questioning somebody who was lurking in the shadows in the aftermath of a loud gunshot-like sound."

This is kinda the thing. At what point can a black person be thought of as 'suspicious' by a non black and it not automatically be labelled as racist.
I was "profiled" just last week. I'm 33, but have been told more than once that I look much younger; early twenties even. I was in a fancy-pants furniture store that I just happened to be walking past on my way home from the auto parts store. Saw some nice looking stuff in the window, so I thought I'd have a peek (turns out I couldn't afford any of it anyway...jeez!). But guess who got followed all around the store by the upper middle aged store owner? Had I been black, should I have taken the "it's because I'm black" offense? More likely, it's because I appeared to be younger than the usual hoity-toity clientele.
About 10 years ago, I used to help a friend with his landscaping business. He was notorious for being late and one morning I found myself sitting in my car at 9 in the morning for about an hour waiting for him to show up out front of the property we were working on. A middle aged white man knocked on my window and rather rudely asked me what I was doing and that I wasn't allowed to sit there. After explaining the situation, he reluctantly decided I could stay; but remained suspicious. I assume he continued watching me until my friend showed up. Again, had I been black, could he have not done the same thing without being accused of racism?
My point is, what situation like these or like the one being discussed at length in the last thread could a black person be thought of as "suspicious", while satisfying your criteria for racism not being involved?

[deep]

If I saw a Canadian in a car parked outside of my house, I'd bring a gun, for sure.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by deep

If I saw a Canadian in a car parked outside of my house, I'd bring a gun, for sure.

oh deep

[AEON]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Let me ask you a question, AEON. What would you be saying if the jury had come back with a guilty verdict?

I would be surprised based on the evidence - but not surprised based on the politics.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

You know what would really support your point of view? Show me a recent case where a white man was accused of killing a black man and was convicted. Or better yet, a case besides the OJ Exception where a black man was accused of killing a white person but was acquitted.

I suppose I don't have an example on hand - but I do no see how the jury is expected to give a verdict based on that. This point (which may be valid) has nothing to do with the events of this particular case.

[Jive Turkey]

I don't think it's very realistic to think white men don't get convicted of killing black men or that black men are never acquitted of killing white men.

It wasn't difficult to find this

Life sentence in Mississippi hate-crime case - CNN.com

Or the eerily similar:

Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York? | The Martialist

[Irvine511]

I profile people all the time. I'd be stupid not to. Given where I live, I have a fairly good idea of who commits the vast majority of the street crime.

(Of course by far the worst criminals with the most blood on their hands in DC are the architects of the Iraq War ... But hey, at least they didn't shoot someone over an iPhone)

I've never been mugged, but someone did rip my iPhone out of my hand (and dropped it, and I recovered it), and it was a young black male. I am more vigilant based upon a variety of factors -- location, time of day, and, yes, attire.

And I am keenly aware that every time there's a perceptible change in my behavior due to the presence of a (likely) young black poor urban male, I am sending out a message that I expect him to be a criminal.

But what else am I to do? I am always keenly aware of my surroundings, I carry a decoy wallet, I take cabs when it's late, I know to put my phone away when the train is stopped, and I spend $40 a month on ADT. I look my neighbors in the eye, I smile and say good morning to everyone, we go to community association meetings.

Unlike Mr Zimmerman, I am not armed. I do not drive around like batman and look for crime. I do not stalk and then follow people.

Unlike Trayvon, I do not know what it feels like to be profiled. I've had a slur thrown at me -- "redneck" and "fucking gringo" (surprisingly, no "faggot" -- but no one assumes that my existence is a threat to theirs. Ever.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by AEON

I would be surprised based on the evidence - but not surprised based on the politics.

So you would assume the jury had been swayed by politics and that they got the verdict wrong.

I personally see the evidence as murky, that a lot weighs on the word of the guy who survived, that the way the defense described things playing out is certainly possible, but not the only possibility. I understand why the jury made the decision they did, and perhaps they couldn't have made any other decision under the law--though I think it's quite a stretch to insist on that. So I don't think that my feeling that they got the verdict--for manslaughter, mind you, not murder 2--wrong is somehow of less value than what you would have thought had the jury gone the other way. I think I have made clear that I feel this way irregardless of race. What I've been trying to do, and what you seem to be resolutely unwilling or unable to see why this verdict was upsetting to a lot of people of color. I will be frank and add that your condescending almost paternal attitude regarding this subject is rather aggravating. And I say that as someone who generally admires your tone and conduct in most discussions on this forum. And I think you know me well enough to know that I'm not prone to get testy, so you can either chalk it up to this being a sensitive subject for me or that maybe your empathy is a little less than it ordinarily is on this issue (likely it's a bit of both).

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I don't think it's very realistic to think white men don't get convicted of killing black men or that black men are never acquitted of killing white men.

It wasn't difficult to find this

Life sentence in Mississippi hate-crime case - CNN.com

Or the eerily similar:

Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?�|�The Martialist

Wow, now that second article is good. There are some key differences (such as the fact that Trayvon wasn't actually committing a crime) but if I were a conservative annoyed by all the keening on the left about the Zimmerman acquittal this is the story I'd be passing around on Facebook. I find that most people are misunderstanding where the frustration over the verdict is coming from and that is why a story like this isn't making the rounds. And really that's the point I've been trying rather fruitlessly to get across. Let me be clear, I wasn't actually suggesting that white men are NEVER convicted of killing a black person (believe it or not I understand we're not living in Mississippi in 1923) or that a black man is ALWAYS convicted of killing a white person. I knew that there had to be cases where those very things happened, but my point was that many of the white people who can't seem to understand why so many people in the black community have a hard time accepting that "justice was done" don't understand the narrative that seems to us to be playing out. And these Facebook pass-arounds of competing narratives of black folks killing white people (and then summarily being shipped off to prison as they should be) does nothing to ameliorate this narrative. That second article, and even the first one to a degree, though begins to undermine the narrative that justice system is stacked against blacks in this country.

Bonus points that the article comes from a very right-leaning source!

[maycocksean]

I am really pissed that Slate got this out before I could post my own "Rules" on my blog. Now it looks like I'm copying them.

Of course I have way fewer readers, but still . . .

Racism and Trayvon Martin: How to think and talk constructively after the Zimmerman verdict. - Slate Magazine

Good rules. I know I haven't always followed all of them and for that I apologize (looking at you AEON). I will try to be better tomorrow.

[Jive Turkey]

I guess my issue isn't the pointing out that institutional racism is still very much a problem (among other kinds), but that maybe this isn't the case to be using as an example. It seems that, with the massive amount of exposure, the Martin/Zimmerman case is being piggybacked for a cause... and I can get that to a degree... but I also feel it cheapens the message (maybe that's not the right way to word it, but I think you'll know what I mean). At the beginning of the whole ordeal, it seemed it might fit, but as things played out, it became obvious that it wasn't what it was originally billed as. But it's being ridden as if it were.
And for what it's worth, I agree that the facebook pass-around pissing contests are completely ignorant. But the Roderick Scott case is almost as analogous a comparison as one could ask for

[maycocksean]

This article is also worth considering, particularly for those who are absolutely certain that juries always get it right. I'll grant you this, they are better than the alternative, at least according to this article.

The Trayvon Martin case: Race and juries | The Economist

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I guess my issue isn't the pointing out that institutional racism is still very much a problem (among other kinds), but that maybe this isn't the case to be using as an example. It seems that, with the massive amount of exposure, the Martin/Zimmerman case is being piggybacked for a cause...

Maybe by Al Sharpton but I don't get that sense from Trayvon's parents.

I'm not yet convinced that this isn't the case to use as an example. I find that people have extremely different responses to the facts that were presented at trial and to suggest that's only because of the media "riling" up the black folk doesn't seem fair.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

What I've been trying to do, and what you seem to be resolutely unwilling or unable to see why this verdict was upsetting to a lot of people of color. I will be frank and add that your condescending almost paternal attitude regarding this subject is rather aggravating. And I say that as someone who generally admires your tone and conduct in most discussions on this forum. And I think you know me well enough to know that I'm not prone to get testy, so you can either chalk it up to this being a sensitive subject for me or that maybe your empathy is a little less than it ordinarily is on this issue (likely it's a bit of both).

Yes, over the years you've proven yourself (to me) to be very calm and patient - so I do apologize if my tone has come across as paternal and condescending. Perhaps I was enjoying playing Law and Order for a moment - and this subject is too sensitive for that. Truly, I'm sorry for that. It was not intentional.

I think you've shed some light on the struggles of the modern African America community. I agree with what you're saying and I follow your reasoning. Where you're losing me is this:

1) I don't think there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman (and many posters in here seem to agree with that)
2) I agree, and doing my best empathize, with the struggles of present day African Americans - you've really helped me see that and I thank you for that.
3) However - that agreement and empathy does not extend to needing Zimmerman to be convicted of a crime when there was not enough evidence to convict him. We can't solve injustice with more injustice.

That's where I'm at - but I could be convinced otherwise if new evidence is brought to light.

Thank you for your patience with me. Please try and I understand that I am listening to you - and your blue words on this blue screen mean something to me.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Maybe by Al Sharpton but I don't get that sense from Trayvon's parents.

Unfortunately it's grown into something bigger than Trayvon's parents. But I would say that perhaps the parents of a murdered son wouldn't be the most objective on the subject and understandably so. It's harsh, but I certainly sympathize with them; My Mom's Brother was murdered at a young age (17 too, if I'm not mistaken). Completely different circumstance, but it terribly affected by Grandparents for the rest of their lives.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I profile people all the time. I'd be stupid not to. Given where I live, I have a fairly good idea of who commits the vast majority of the street crime.

(Of course by far the worst criminals with the most blood on their hands in DC are the architects of the Iraq War ... But hey, at least they didn't shoot someone over an iPhone)

I've never been mugged, but someone did rip my iPhone out of my hand (and dropped it, and I recovered it), and it was a young black male. I am more vigilant based upon a variety of factors -- location, time of day, and, yes, attire.

And I am keenly aware that every time there's a perceptible change in my behavior due to the presence of a (likely) young black poor urban male, I am sending out a message that I expect him to be a criminal.

But what else am I to do? I am always keenly aware of my surroundings, I carry a decoy wallet, I take cabs when it's late, I know to put my phone away when the train is stopped, and I spend $40 a month on ADT. I look my neighbors in the eye, I smile and say good morning to everyone, we go to community association meetings.

Unlike Mr Zimmerman, I am not armed. I do not drive around like batman and look for crime. I do not stalk and then follow people.

Unlike Trayvon, I do not know what it feels like to be profiled. I've had a slur thrown at me -- "redneck" and "fucking gringo" (surprisingly, no "faggot" -- but no one assumes that my existence is a threat to theirs. Ever.

This is a straight-forward an honest post.

You have to excuse me, but I laughed at the "redneck" comment - while I've never met you, the image I have had in my mind over the years was anything but a "redneck"