Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
With him making a racial slur on the phone call I beg to differ.
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Stand Your Ground Law
Started by BLADEMDA
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
With him making a racial slur on the phone call I beg to differ.
Apparently you already know the whole rundown of the case but the rest of us should "wait and see" what the Grand Jury comes up with.
You're proving your racial biases by continually posting about the racial aspects of the case unprompted and random wikipedia articles about black guys killing white people. It really doesn't matter if he was black or not outside of the fact that being black may have made him seem more threatening to Zimmerman.
You conveniently ignore major flaws in Zimmerman's statements. He seems like a pretty decent sized guy, are we to believe that a 17 year old rabbit punched him (after confronting him head on), incapacitated him so fully with one punch that he couldn't defend himself physically, than managed to get on top of him in such a way that he couldn't do anything to defend himself? We're then supposed to believe that, even though Zimmerman couldn't defend himself physically while on the ground, he managed to pull out his Kel-Tec (after Trayvon had seen it) and fire it? Wouldn't you think that if he had the time and freedom to to pull a gun out that he would have been defending himself from the physical onslaught instead? If we're supposed to believe all this, Zimmerman sounds like a real b*tch to me at the least. I guess we're supposed to resolve one on one fistfights with firearms now.
You still haven't given any explanation for why he's looking so clean in the video. Even if the blood was cleaned up on his skin, we would expect a bit on his clothes. I don't see any sort of covering/bandage anywhere on him. So no bandages and no scabs...do cuts stop bleeding by themselves in Florida? In fact the laceration on his head was supposed to be so bad that he "probably should have gotten stiches". His nose is supposed to be pretty jacked up right? Not lookin too bad there.
I'm not some kind of gun control nut. I own a Springfield XD-40 and have a CCW permit. It's not the carrying of firearms I'm arguing against here, its the specifics of the case and the way it was handled. The tangible evidence so far (the 911 call and video now) do not speak well for Zimmerman.
Edit: Yeah the video is blurry. It's not as blurry as you wish it was. Blood on white skin shouldn't be too hard to see.
Last edited:
The best thing that could happen would be if the WHOLE story can come out, with a decent timeline of events, police reports, witness statements, etc. The Trayvon supporters haven't helped themselves by not going to the police for a couple weeks, and the Zimmerman side hasn't helped themselves in their response by letting little details trickle out in bits and pieces. I think the video is worthless and people are pretty much seeing what they want to see. I don't think any of us has seen or heard the entire story yet. Hopefully it's something the grand jury can sift through and we can move on (whatever that will be). However, regardless of which direction this goes, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of unhappy people on both sides.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I know this is a hot topic, so I'm gonna keep it clean here. But, what you described takes ONE punch. I'm 6'4'', I've seen others my size take a right to the chin and DONE. Nobody can make a judgement about Zimmerman's chin, gut or constitution. So, before we make a judgement, ONE punch. Food for thought. IF I were forced to make a judgement about Zimmerman, the only one I can think of is that the gun toting neighborhood watch dude is PROBABLY not the bad ***** fighter from my HS who could lay anyone out with a glare let alone a punch. But I could be 100% wrong. That's a generalization though, so I get it.
Take race out of this comment. Or away from your argument. And then read it. Does this seem like the action of a racially motivated person? If I'm carrying? And someone were punching me, I'm reaching for my weapon (granted, ONLY if I feared for my life. I'd certainly try to fight back. I don't like killing people. Not my thing. The moment that person reaches for the deadly weapon on my hip? That person is asking to be killed. I'm going home to my family (on of my father's favorite quotes, he was a federal agent. and decidedly not a racist).
See neighborhood watch comment of mine above. I might agree with this.
To reiterate, all the fist fights I've been in my life have been solved with fists. If the OTHER person had a gun, who knows. If I have a gun? And the fight is at the point I'm fearing for my life - that person is dead - and should have brought a gun to this gun fight. Meaning, if you're going to harm me with your fists, I have every right to protect myself in ANY way I have. Knife, gun, 2X4. Again, I state that I know bupkis about what really happened that night. I'm saying how I would handle things. What's the alternative? "Sorry Family of Doc712, Doc712 feared for his life but he didn't wanna shoot anyone during a fist fight. So, ya know, he's dead or in a coma now." Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
Correct. Devil's advocate, I've seen broken noses in hockey fights, facial fractures even, where the player just skated off the ice without ANY visible markings. I will say that I've also seen my share of bloody fights with no broken bones. Sort of depends. Would it be possible, docs, to confirm a broken nose (even seeing if it were recent) by X-ray? This would be interesting news...
All bleeding eventually stops. 😉
Again, devil's advocate, when was this video taken? One hour, 10 minutes, 2 days, after the incident? I thought this was when Zimm decided to turn himself in, I'm confused about the timeline, can someone explain for me?
So, you own a gun with a concealed carry. Tell me, at what point would YOU use your weapon? Since NEITHER of us know what happened (yes?) are you saying a) it's impossible for the victim to have clocked Zimm? b) and gotten on top of him? c) is that scenario even unlikely? d) Did the victim reach for Zimm's gun? e) If he did, was Zimm in his right (legal, moral)? f) if victim didn't, was Zimm still in his right (assuming he was in a defensive position? g) let's say Zimm was verbally threatened and NOT EVEN TOUCHED but surrounded and feared for his life, legally and morally did he have a right to use lethal force to protect himself? Curious. Why do YOU have a CCW?
All the more reason to see what comes out during next week's grand jury. The video evidence might not seem to favor Zimmerman, but down here, in Florida (aka the wild west when it comes to guns) the lethal force legality of it all is HIGHLY in favor of Zimmerman. [/QUOTE]
I have never found Blade to be anything close to racist, I just don't get that vibe, so I would really take it easy on the racial thing here, he's just said that he wants to see the evidence, and as a pretty empirical guy, I imagine his views will be really middle of the road when the evidence comes out. White v Black with gun. Black v white with gun. I WILL USUALLY be in favor of the person protecting himself, whatever race or creed. If you're going to physically threaten ANYONE with a gun, I vote for the right for that person to kill you to save him/herself. Plain and simple. That's pretty much where I stand. In this or any case, if the shooter has so much as a SCRATCH on him/her, I will always say they had a right to shoot, because all it takes is ONE PUNCH or kick or stab to get someone hurt enough to grab that person's weapon and kill that person. It's sad but true.
And now we shall await the details of the case.
D712
My point is I never heard about these cases at all. No major press coverage. The media is biased against fair reporting of black vs. white crime or black racist crimes.
Yet, here we have a possible self-defense case awaiting Grand Jury decision and the media has already labeled Zimmerman a racist murderer; in addition, the New Black Panthers has a bounty on his head.
Oh, if these horrific crimes were committed by white people against innocent black citizens Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson combined with the liberal media would have made certain that I was aware of these white racist hate crimes. Justice is color blind. Martin Luther King said never judge a man by the color of his skin but judge him by his character.
Valid point about the reporting although I think the reporting here was mostly driven by the fact that the case didn't look like it had been investigated thoroughly enough (whether it had or not media sources knew most people would think it hadn't). Of course, I disagree with anyone putting out a bounty or trying to give away a man's location to incite violence.
Or maybe a grown man on patrol scared a 17 yr old, who had the misfortune of showing up to a gunfight without a gun. They were both "defending themselves." one just happened to carry a weapon, and chose to use it.
I wonder how we would be defending the actions of the kid if he had been the one with the gun, and was 18. Shooting a guy on Neighborhood watch in self defense. My guess is, he would be in jail.
Absolutely. That could have happened. However, I don't think that's against the law...on its face.
D712
Take a look at this link. Just 5 seconds of your time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-British-students-criticise-Barack-Obama.html
Two British tourists shot dead in Florida begged for their lives before being gunned down, court papers have disclosed
Crime happens everyday across the USA. Zimmerman won't be found guilty of murder.
Factoid: Black Male Incarceration Rate is 6 Times Greater Than Rate for White Males
Statistics from the Department of Justice indicate that black males are incarcerated – held in prison or jail – at a rate that is over 6 times higher than that for white males.
For every 100,000 black males, an estimated 4,777 are held in federal or state prison or a local jail.
By contrast, for every 100,000 white men, only 727 are estimated to be incarcerated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 – Statistical Tables, March 2009 (Revised 4/8/09), Table 18
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report that's cited above can be obtained here. If you want to go straight to the PDF version of the report, it's here.
One result of this high incarceration rate is that the percentage of blacks among all males in prison or jail far exceeds the percentage of blacks in the general population:
Statistics from the Department of Justice indicate that black males are incarcerated – held in prison or jail – at a rate that is over 6 times higher than that for white males.
For every 100,000 black males, an estimated 4,777 are held in federal or state prison or a local jail.
By contrast, for every 100,000 white men, only 727 are estimated to be incarcerated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 – Statistical Tables, March 2009 (Revised 4/8/09), Table 18
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report that's cited above can be obtained here. If you want to go straight to the PDF version of the report, it's here.
One result of this high incarceration rate is that the percentage of blacks among all males in prison or jail far exceeds the percentage of blacks in the general population:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/23/why-young-black-males-are-not
What's the reason for the high crime rate among Blacks in America?
1. Family- Only one parent usually a Mother in the home.
2. Poverty- Item number one combined with a working mom trying support multiple children on a low income
3. Education- Usually bad schools and littler emphasis on education due to items 1 and 2.
A new report from the Schott Foundation reveals that only 47 percent of black male students earn a high school diploma on time.
What's the reason for the high crime rate among Blacks in America?
1. Family- Only one parent usually a Mother in the home.
2. Poverty- Item number one combined with a working mom trying support multiple children on a low income
3. Education- Usually bad schools and littler emphasis on education due to items 1 and 2.
A new report from the Schott Foundation reveals that only 47 percent of black male students earn a high school diploma on time.
Have you ever been punched, or seen someone get punched, in a fight where the puncher is serious about hurting the punchee?
What if he is a real b*tch, a weakling, a non-kung-fu-masta who is totally and shamefully 🙄 incapable of kung-fu'ing his way out of there with poise and style? Is he obligated to leave his gun in its holster and LOSE the fight, possibly badly, possibly suffering permanent injury, just because someone might call him a b*tch on the internet?
Fists can cause permanent, severe damage. 17 year olds are adults in practical physical terms.
Yeah, he's a *****. The question is, did his *****ic actions rise to the level of criminal acts under Florida law?
Another thing to learn from this case is that the police department is a good place to commit a crime, because they apparently bought their security cameras on clearance at a Costco. Maybe some bonehead accidentally overcompressed the shots released to the media, and they have higher quality copies somewhere, but those images suck.
It's not the 45 yo couch potato dad that I'd worry about, it's the young and strong 17 yo who wants to prove something
to his friends that needs to be taken with extreme caution.
That's one question, above, the second one is a moral one. We can better answer that next week, perhaps.
D712
I agree, and I am too far away from FL and gun laws in general to make any informed argument on the topic. Just commenting on attention and the political investment of the usual players, ie Fox News and Al Sharpton, etc.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
For someone so poorly informed, you sure have strong opinions.
There are already limits, and they are far more restrictive than those in effect on speech. This is not a matter of opinion - this is solidly established judicial precedent and case law.
There exists a concept called "scrutiny" which is the standard by which a right may be limited by the government.
In the case of your example (speech) the applicable standard set by the Supreme Court is strict scrutiny. This means that in order to restrict or limit a right, the government MUST prove
1) that there is a "compelling government interest" to regulate the right
2) that the regulation is as "narrowly tailored" as possible
3) that the regulation utilizes the "least restrictive means" to accomplish its goal
A level of scrutiny for regulation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been set by the Supreme Court, though in the aftermath of Heller/McDonald it is likely in the next 2-5 years a case will reach the Court and a level of scrutiny will be specified. Most of us expect that level of scrutiny to be on par with other civil rights, ie strict. But for now - and for all of our nation's history up to this point - there has been a FAR lower standard for regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.
And this is trivially easy to see and demonstrate. For example,
- the now-expired federal assault weapons ban
- Illinois' refusal to issue carry permits to anyone under any circumstances
- California's current assault weapons ban, magazine laws, waiting period, 1-in-30 law
- New York's gun laws
- Hawaii's gun laws
NONE of which would stand up to strict scrutiny.
Your notion that the right to keep and bear arms is less restricted than the right to free speech is demonstrably false. It is, in fact, the most heavily and arbitrarily restricted one of the first 10 Amendments.
Is it just me or does your whole post contradict it self multiple times?
I think it's just you, but if you have some specific contradictions to point out, I might be able to address them.
Did the guy even go to the hospital? Sounds to me like you are exagerating.
I agree with this to some extent but:
Most crime, at least violent crime, occurs in poor socioeconomic areas
These areas have a higher % of minorities
Therefore more arrests of minorities on a pure # basis
More arrests = more convictions just by the numbers
Do innocent people get arrested and put in jail? Of course, though quantifying this is impossible. Does this happen more often to minorities? Don't know, I would actually assume that it is likely though again statistics are hard to find.
What we can see is conviction rate and sentencing disparity by race when controlled for similar crimes. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/disparity.pdf
😕 Could you be more specific? I'm honestly asking here. I thought my post was pretty clear, although it is a complex subject.
Point being? Trayvon deserved it?Factoid: Black Male Incarceration Rate is 6 Times Greater Than Rate for White Males
Statistics from the Department of Justice indicate that black males are incarcerated held in prison or jail at a rate that is over 6 times higher than that for white males.
For every 100,000 black males, an estimated 4,777 are held in federal or state prison or a local jail.
By contrast, for every 100,000 white men, only 727 are estimated to be incarcerated.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 Statistical Tables, March 2009 (Revised 4/8/09), Table 18
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report thats cited above can be obtained here. If you want to go straight to the PDF version of the report, its here.
One result of this high incarceration rate is that the percentage of blacks among all males in prison or jail far exceeds the percentage of blacks in the general population:
I really don't get why you keep throwing these racially charged jabs for a stand your ground law that is supposed to be above the color lines.
Someone had mentioned earlier that Zimmerman hadn't gone to see docs when it was required with a broken nose etc. But his brother states that things will become clear when this "medical records" are released next week during the trial.
Any thoughts on this? Did he indeed visit a hospital?
D712
Any thoughts on this? Did he indeed visit a hospital?
D712
5). Increased rate of being convicted for nonviolent crimes. 12 times more likely for black folks to be arrested for MJ... 12. Think about it.
6). Rapid growth of a privatized prison industrial complex
Race & Prison - Data
(2011 - race & prison - imprisonment for marijuana offenses) "Compared to Non-blacks, Californias African-American population are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana, 12 times more likely to be imprisoned for a marijuana felony arrest, and 3 times more likely to be imprisoned per marijuana possession arrest. Overall, as Figure 3 illustrates, these disparities accumulate to 10 times greater odds of an African-American being imprisoned for marijuana than other racial/ethnic groups."
Source:
Males, Mike, "Misdemeanor marijuana arrests are skyrocketing and other California marijuana enforcement disparities," Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (San Francisco, CA: November 2011), p. 6.
http://cjcj.org/files/Misdemeanor_marijuana_arrests.pdf
You are correct this is very complex. And I'm probably not smart enough to figure it out. But...
Above quote states that right to bear arms is more restrictive than free speech.
Here, you stated that there is very little restriction in the right to bear arms.
Then you go on to give several examples of how the 2nd Amendment IS restricted. But end by saying none of these restrictions will hold up in the Supreme Court!
Finally, you end by saying that the right to bear arms is the most restricted Amendment.
So, I am a little confused.
Above quote states that right to bear arms is more restrictive than free speech.
Here, you stated that there is very little restriction in the right to bear arms.
Then you go on to give several examples of how the 2nd Amendment IS restricted. But end by saying none of these restrictions will hold up in the Supreme Court!
Finally, you end by saying that the right to bear arms is the most restricted Amendment.
So, I am a little confused.
Ok, that statistic jumps out at you..... Until you look at the data. Those numbers are per 100,000 population, it says nothing of arrest/sentencing discrepancy between black/non-black. It also doesn't really specify quantity in possession. In your chart there IS a discrepancy between black/white in felony possession rate but there is no statistical diff between arrest rate when looking at simple MJ possession.
You can make statistics say whatever you want if you try. (not you specifically, just saying that report used the most shocking number to paint THEIR picture.)
His point is that in order to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you must pass a certain level of scrutiny. In other words, "someone" must evaluate whether or not your restriction is a violation of that right. The level of scrutiny is well defined for most rights but not the 2nd amendment. How else could NY ban handguns? PGG asserts current cases will work their way to the SCOTUS in the near future and shape the defined level of scrutiny for 2nd amendment restrictions.
No scrutiny = freely restricted
Strict scrutiny = difficult to restrict
No contradictions imo...
No. That's not my point at all. I was making a bigger point about what type/background does a Black Male usually have who ends up incarcerated. Since the numbers are pretty clear that Blacks make up a significant % of our prisons compared to their overall population ask yourself why that is.
Did Trayvon come from a single parent home? What was his education/school like? What was his socioeconomic background?
Nobody deserves to be shot in cold blood in America.
Liberals can't handle the Truth. The fact is Black males are killed everyday by other Black males all over the country. Why is that? Is that my racial stereotyping causing this problem or is it just plain fact.
The Metropolitan Police Department publishes data online starting from 1998 indicating each homicide victim's race. Combining the MPD data with population projections derived from official Census figures allows computing the homicide rate per 100,000 residents by race.
Homicides per 100,000 residents, by race. View the raw data (XLS).
Homicides per 100,000 residents, by race. View the raw data (XLS).
"Fifty years ago, hooded killers from the Ku Klux Klan stalked blacks neighborhoods. Today the murderers are mostly black. A hundred years ago, Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" sought to "exterminate the Negro population." Today, blacks are fulfilling the Planned Parenthood founder's dream of genocide. This is self-sabotage."
"when you consider that while just 32.4% of Chicago's population, blacks accounted for 75% of total crime in 2009."
Jerome Hudson
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45077
"when you consider that while just 32.4% of Chicago's population, blacks accounted for 75% of total crime in 2009."
Jerome Hudson
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45077
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yes.
No.
What I stated, is that the laws restricting firearms are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as laws restricting speech.
Again, what I wrote, with emphasis added
pgg said:
The net effect is that it is far easier to pass laws restricting gun rights than it is to pass laws restricting speech. As a consequence, we are burdened with extremely restrictive laws on the right to keep and bear arms. Such as:
Correct - the 2nd Amendment is very restricted in these cases.
At present, there is no SCOTUS ruling on scrutiny for the 2nd Amendment.
It is a near-certainty that in the next few years, this very issue will be heard and decided by the Court. There are multiple cases winding their ways through circuit courts, and most people watching agree that circuit splits are inevitable, which will set up appeals to the Supreme Court.
Given the current Court's makeup, most expect the standard will be strict scrutiny, and after that is established, none of these restrictions will stand up when challenged.
It is. 🙂
But in time, I believe that will change, and the 2nd Amendment will someday enjoy the same level of judicial protection as the 1st.
But to get back to the original point. Your post and claim:
sleepallday said:
You noted that speech is limited, then stated that RKBA should be limited too. The implication is that you think RKBA is either not limited, or not limited enough.
I pointed out that this is simply incorrect, and that there is an extraordinarily high threshold for restriction of speech. I made specific reference to the level of judicial scrutiny that applies to laws restricting speech.
I then pointed out that there is no such threshold for restriction of 2nd Amendment rights, pointing out a number of instances in which those rights are heavily regulated or banned entirely.
The point is, the right to bear arms is already severely limited. Your (paraphrased) notion that "well, speech is kinda limited, so guns should be too!" is just grossly misinformed.
If you want the right to be limited more, say so, and we can argue/disagree about that. But when you pretend or imply that RKBA isn't regulated to the degree speech is, you're simply and provably wrong.
That's all. 😉
It's not just marijuana, that was one example. I didn't go deeper because I thought it was pretty incontrovertible that a 400 year history of racially targeted injustice and the rapid development of a For-Profit prison industrial complex influences the increased rate of incarceration for Black folks.
Remember the 10g crack = 1kg cocaine law in the 90s? A renown injustice that led to increased rates of felony drug trafficking convictions for blacks and hispanics and led to the fair sentencing act of 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act
You were racial profiling like Zimmerman. Your point remains to be seen. From my perspective, you are merely revealing your biases in a specious attempt to support your stance on this issue.
I come from an identical background and yet I'm graduating from ucsf in 2 months. Trayvon never had the chance to become more than the statistic he's expected to be.
Black on Black on black crime is problem. What's your point?
It wasn't your racial stereotyping that caused the problem, it was Zimmerman's.
No, your stereotyping is the kind that keeps poor (black, white, and purple) neighborhoods poor and wealthy neighborhoods wealthy. The stereotype is based on the just-world fallacy, i.e. the belief that opportunities for everyone are truly equal across the country and that everyone could become wealthy if only they'd pick themselves up by the bootstraps and stop being lazy and ignorant. Your worldview ignores or shuns the possibility that public policy (on a local, state, and national level) can reduce inequality and crime by providing resources to neighborhoods with inadequate funding for police, education, social services etc.
Hahaha. I think this is a mirror image of what I was going to post next. Anyone who does not believe this is a factor, certainly not the whole reason, but a strong factor, is completely ignorant.
I completely disagree. In the world of economic success society rewards being Black in America. We don't live in a color blind society because liberals like you wear rose colored glasses.
America has done everything possible to create a successful atmosphere for Blacks in America since the 1970s. Even today if you are willing to work hard and study moderately there is nothing a Black person can not achieve. The colleges, universities, law schools, medical schools are all desperate for qualified black candidates.
Truly, a Black American willing to shove off the life of crime and drugs and embrace scholastics and hard work has the world as his oyster.
Next time you drive down the NJ Turnpike (if you ever have the privilege) and you see a car pulled over, take a look at the color of the driver. 99/100 times the driver is black.
As they say in NJ, I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin...
.
Last edited:
Just as a public service announcement, with minimal searching you can find out that Mr. Hudson is blatantly, despicably misquoting Ms. Sanger to make her appear racist.
Stop being lazy and doing so many drugs and beating up poor defenseless neighborhood watchmen with no kung fu skills, and affirmative action will do the rest! It's so simple, Blade! 'Tis truly a mystery how we have not solved the problems of race in America with such stunningly poignant insight.
But seriously, be more of a stereotypical rich white repub/libertarian dude from the south
Look at President Obama. He overcame much and used the system you despise to his advantage. Being Black was an advantage to Obama for most of his academic and public career. Many supposed white people with "biases" (your term) even voted for him This is proof we are no longer a racist nation.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well ...
I'm a white boy who grew up in the 'burbs and went to college on my parents' dime, except for a few $K in loans, paid off long ago. I'm a newish attending on a .mil salary but we've been able to put away $10K+/year in 529s for our kids plus I transferred my full GI Bill benefits to one of them (odd that I'm even eligible since the .mil put me through medical school). We lean on our kids to do well in school, and they do. Point being, THIS cycle will continue and my kids are well on their way towards being 1%ers too.
I know a handful of comparably successful black people who grew up differently. The few times I've talked about the subject with one of them, it was clear he was the exception in his neighborhood. THAT cycle is also continuing.
You think this is no longer a racist nation? Answer this: if Trayvon had survived his Skittles run and abruptly decided to swear off the good green that got him suspended, finished high school, went to college, and applied for a job, which otherwise identical resume would've been more likely to get a call back:
The one from Trayvon Martin? Or George Zimmerman? (link is to a pdf)
We're certainly a less racist nation than we were 50 years ago, but that's doesn't mean racism isn't a continuing problem. I don't know what the solution is - earlier today in this thread I wrote about the school district my kids used to be in, and how we would have put our oldest in a private school had we stayed there another year. (There's that cycle again - affluence opens doors.) I will be honest, I had difficulty getting my 6th grader to understand that the thugs-in-training who hassled him at school weren't *******s because they were black, but were *******s because of a complex set of circumstances involving their lousy/absent parents, socioeconomic factors, caloric intake, TV/sports/music culture, etc. I think he sort of understood the basic message, that judging by race isn't OK, but I know he understood that if black kids were approaching, he should avoid them, because not avoiding them sometimes ended badly.
A useful debate might be what role, if any, we want government to have in creating or enforcing a level playing field. But c'mon, don't pretend everyone gets an equal shot at success from birth ...
What's your definition of a racist nation? Because I can tell you up in the northeast bias is alive and kicking. I'm just trying to see what you mean by that. I've been profiled numerous times and have had guns drawn on me by police a couple of times and I can tell you there's nothing scarier for a black man to be staring down a few barrels of itchy finger cops. Racist attitudes is quite prevalent and in some cases overt.
PS. I have never been arrested in my life but I have stories about police encounters that will have your jaw drop, trust me.
WOW! What bubble do you live in? Talk to someone that is not white and ask them if racism is still prevalent today.
OK, you can list current laws restricting speech, and for every one you post, I'll list five current laws restricting firearm ownership or use.
You can go first.
Or we can agree to disagree. 😀
