• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin

PhDeac said:
That's not what I said. But that's what you think I said. And that's part of the problem. You couldn't even read that brief passage and not look at it from your point of view.
Click to expand...

Oh well then please, do explain. I'm all ears.
 
Agreed with the above, but I do find that the quote by Rico is a problem with all society today. If a friend can not point out the facts to another friend, how is the media suppose to do this properly? If they are true friends and know you are not racist why should they mind listening to your point of view of how the FACTS are listed? I was socializing and working with a lot more black friends during the O.J. trial and discussing the facts after the innocent verdict was given I think changed a lot of minds to what really happened.

I think discussing facts, and again I have no idea what facts were wrong by Rico's friends, is the best way to help communicate racial differences. Again, I am talking about friends trusting friends, not a public chat room.

"Some of their posts were either factually or legally incorrect. However, I made no effort to "correct" them because its not my place to tell my friends how they should feel"
WFU71 said:
Solid comments by Rico and Ph.
Click to expand...
 
"discussing the facts after the innocent verdict was given I think changed a lot of minds to what really happened."

Could you elaborate? It sounds like you're saying that as the correct white guy, you convinced your black friends that the system didn't work in the OJ case enough the prosecution did a poor job presenting their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
TARDAWG said:
Agreed with the above, but I do find that the quote by Rico is a problem with all society today. If a friend can not point out the facts to another friend, how is the media suppose to do this properly? If they are true friends and know you are not racist why should they mind listening to your point of view of how the FACTS are listed? I was socializing and working with a lot more black friends during the O.J. trial and discussing the facts after the innocent verdict was given I think changed a lot of minds to what really happened.

I think discussing facts, and again I have no idea what facts were wrong by Rico's friends, is the best way to help communicate racial differences. Again, I am talking about friends trusting friends, not a public chat room.

"Some of their posts were either factually or legally incorrect. However, I made no effort to "correct" them because its not my place to tell my friends how they should feel"
Click to expand...

I'm sure my post wasn't clear enough, but my whole point was that I realized my black friends were just "venting". They weren't inviting me or anyone else to engage in a debate with them, and I'm sure they weren't in the mood to debate so soon after the verdict. Correcting facts is too easily construed as "gloating". They wanted to vent and I let them vent without interference (other than an occasional private message to the effect that I understood their anger, even if I didn't fully understand). And arguing with any friend on a heated topic, especially on how they should feel, is poor form in my opinion.

(And I want to admit and explain that I act differently on this board because we're basically anonymous, and debate here is more of an intellectual exercise. You guys are virtual entities behind a username, and not real-life friends. I have respect for PH's views although I don't know him in person, so I engage him in debate occasionally with the assumption that he won't be offended. As a matter of fact, his comments since last weekend have been more in the realm of rational debate, and not "venting" - I would say that BKF was probably venting about his deeply held political views so I left him alone.)
 
I am not taking this bait, and for the record I think Zimmerman is guilty as hell. But if anyone is listening to friends "Vent" "rant" or express false facts that leads others into fury, I think it is a friends duty to step in and remind them that emotions are taking over with what the facts really are. I am not just applying this to black white issues. But society is not a better place if people are running around with bad information in their head, and encouraging others to do the same
PhDeac said:
"discussing the facts after the innocent verdict was given I think changed a lot of minds to what really happened."

Could you elaborate? It sounds like you're saying that as the correct white guy, you convinced your black friends that the system didn't work in the OJ case enough the prosecution did a poor job presenting their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
 
RicoSuave said:
I'm sure my post wasn't clear enough, but my whole point was that I realized my black friends were just "venting". They weren't inviting me or anyone else to engage in a debate with them, and I'm sure they weren't in the mood to debate so soon after the verdict. Correcting facts is too easily construed as "gloating". They wanted to vent and I let them vent without interference (other than an occasional private message to the effect that I understood their anger, even if I didn't fully understand). And arguing with any friend on a heated topic, especially on how they should feel, is poor form in my opinion.

(And I want to admit and explain that I act differently on this board because we're basically anonymous, and debate here is more of an intellectual exercise. You guys are virtual entities behind a username, and not real-life friends. I have respect for PH's views although I don't know him in person, so I engage him in debate occasionally with the assumption that he won't be offended. As a matter of fact, his comments since last weekend have been more in the realm of rational debate, and not "venting" - I would say that BKF was probably venting about his deeply held political views so I left him alone.)
Click to expand...

Good clarification. We've all let our wife vent instead of offering facts and we've all resented when people didn't let us vent instead of offering facts and advice (why don't you just root for another team?).
 
PhDeac said:
Good clarification. We've all let our wife vent instead of offering facts and we've all resented when people didn't let us vent instead of offering facts and advice (why don't you just root for another team?).
Click to expand...

 
How many people think the verdict would have been different if everything about the situation was the same except the races of the individuals were reversed? So the killer was a 27-yo black man active in his neighborhood's watch program and prone to paranoia and over-reaction. And the victim was an unarmed 17-yo white/hispanic kid coming back from a store late at night, wearing a hoodie and fitting the description of recent break-in suspects. Remember, all of the evidence (or lack thereof) is the same.

I think the verdict would have been the same.
 
I think a jury of 5 or 6 white women would have been much more sympathetic to a 17 year old kid more similar to their son or brother

I still don't know why it's a big deal that Martin was wearing a hooded jacket in the rain.
 
PhDeac said:
I think a jury of 5 or 6 white women would have been much more sympathetic to a 17 year old kid more similar to their son or brother

I still don't know why it's a big deal that Martin was wearing a hooded jacket in the rain.
Click to expand...

Because it lessens the chances that Zimmerman could see him well enough to know Martin's race when he decided to appraoch/follow him. I get that you have said that the racial component in this case is more about the trial/verdict than the actual incident, but there are people (not you, I don't think) claiming that Zimmerman was so proactive simply because Martin was black. If Zimmerman couldn't even tell his race when he first approached him, then that theory is generally out the window.
 
I thought it was important that Martin fit the description? The description was just clothing?
 
PhDeac said:
I think a jury of 5 or 6 white women would have been much more sympathetic to a 17 year old kid more similar to their son or brother

I still don't know why it's a big deal that Martin was wearing a hooded jacket in the rain.
Click to expand...

So do you think the verdict would have been the same or different?

And I don't think the hoodie was a big deal - just that it was part of the way his appearance was described.
I honestly don't know the answer to this - were the suspects in the earlier break-ins described as wearing hoodies?
 
PhDeac said:
I thought it was important that Martin fit the description? The description was just clothing?
Click to expand...

In my mind, yes, though I'm not him. As someone said on one of the other threads, I tend to think any profiling was likely more about age than race. If you see someone walking in a residential area in the rain in the evening wearing a hoodie, regardless of whether or not you can see them I think most people's initial thoughts would be that it is a teenager. Black kid, white kid, asian kid, why is he walking in the rain where teens have been burgalrizing houses?
 
How did he know he was a teenager if he couldn't even tell he was black?

This is Martin from the convenience store by the way. I'm curious why you think Zimmerman could tell he was a teenager, but couldn't tell he was black.

Are you saying adults would have an umbrella instead?


 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
In my mind, yes, though I'm not him. As someone said on one of the other threads, I tend to think any profiling was likely more about age than race. If you see someone walking in a residential area in the rain in the evening wearing a hoodie, regardless of whether or not you can see them I think most people's initial thoughts would be that it is a teenager. Black kid, white kid, asian kid, why is he walking in the rain where teens have been burgalrizing houses?
Click to expand...

This sentence is mind-boggling.
 
PhDeac said:
How did he know he was a teenager if he couldn't even tell he was black?

This is Martin from the convenience store by the way. I'm curious why you think Zimmerman could tell he was a teenager, but couldn't tell he was black.

Are you saying adults would have an umbrella instead?


Click to expand...

I can say for certainty that my dad would never wear a hoodie...he's just an old dude.

So yes, I think hoodie = younger person in most peoples' minds (though I wouldn't say definitively teenager)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top