Argument over loud music leads to the fatal shooting of a Florida teen

[xbuzzerx]

Well let's see if I can decipher this. The fact that the guy shot a kid over a loud stereo is rediculous and should be dealt with. But the fact that people are saying it's racialy motivated based on nothing more than skin color is crap. To this point I've heard nothing suggesting the shooters motivation. Was it racial, was it that the guy dislikes loud music, was something said between the two that set this nut off, I don't know, but I doubt you do either, that's why I say we need the full story.
As to the view of "no phyical threat", we don't know that either. There are now reports that say Dunn claims to have seen a shotgun in the car, weather it's true or not, or weather that would constitue a "physical threat" or not will eventualy be brought to light.

Unless you can explain to me how a guy with a gun standing near a vehicle felt physically threatened by unarmed teenagers, particularly an unarmed teenager in the BACK SEAT of that vehicle, for some other reason, then yes, I believe it's good old fashioned prejudice.

The guy is claiming it was self-defense so.... you have a better explanation as to why this guy felt "threatened" by an unarmed teen sitting inside a car?

[xbuzzerx]

There's LOTS and LOTS of assumptions and presumptions happening here and very little fact.

And lots of this stuff as well—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Please no pure rhetoric responses at lunchtime. At least bother to type out a thought.

[pat grimshaw]

^
I have no thoughts on hearsay. Hearsay and Assumptions isn't evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

[xbuzzerx]

^
I have no thoughts on hearsay. Hearsay and Assumptions isn't evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Yes and this isn't a court of law so what is your point?

[pat grimshaw]

Yes and this isn't a court of law ...

this is a court of fools

[The Fly]

^ So you presume this guy was just insane and would shoot any unarmed teenager near his house, and that's the "best"?

If anything I feel like my interpretation of what happened is a lot kinder than yours. I think this is a prejudiced guy who, like a LOT of white people, is kind of intimidated by black people in general, particularly males, and has the social conditioning that most of us of every race in the United States do that black people are "more dangerous." And when he went up and confronted these kids and they (my assumption) mouthed back (it's legal to play music before 11pm) he felt threatened and reacted. Do I think it COULDN'T have happened with white teenagers? No. Do I think it's equally likely he would have felt equally threatened by white teenagers sitting inside a vehicle to the point where he would shoot them? No.

And he is claiming self-defense... so his perception of 'threat' is relevant.

The alternate is to assume he's just a psychopathic nutbar and would have shot anyone who played music, in which case it begs the question of why he hasn't shot random people before. I hardly think of that as the "more positive" interpretation.

I don't presume the guy was/is nuts (clinicaly insane), nor do I assume he would shoot any teenager, something set him off. And it's that "something" that has to be known before anyone can assign a motivation to his actions.
As to your beleif that he felt threatened, where do you get that from? If he felt threatened why would he approach the car?
Your take on this situation seems to be primarily based on "feelings", What you "feel" what you believe Dunn "felt", how white people "feel". When you start labeling people you need more than "feelings", FACTS are the meat of the matter, without them you're just pissin' in the wind.

[xbuzzerx]

I don't presume the guy was/is nuts (clinicaly insane), nor do I assume he would shoot any teenager, something set him off. And it's that "something" that has to be known before anyone can assign a motivation to his actions.
As to your beleif that he felt threatened, where do you get that from? If he felt threatened why would he approach the car?
Your take on this situation seems to be primarily based on "feelings", What you "feel" what you believe Dunn "felt", how white people "feel". When you start labeling people you need more than "feelings", FACTS are the meat of the matter, without them you're just pissin' in the wind.

Perhaps you do not understand what "self defense" means. That is his position in his legal defense so far.

If you are supposing that we can't "assume" he felt threatened then his entire defense is invalid.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

gon read it

thankyou

[xbuzzerx]

No, the problem I have is not with you the individual, but the tenor of these continuing race threads in Hot Topics.

The implication is that whites are oppressing blacks in an ongoing systemic and widespread manner, and that states like Florida are some sort of holdouts of Jim Crow, barely progressed into civil rights or trying hard to go backward.

Whereas there IS racism in all countries, including the U.S., it is a more complex story than just majorities oppressing minorities. Racial animosity goes both directions across cultural lines, and is problematic in all instances.

My point was and is that blacks are causing vastly more fatalities to blacks than whites in criminal acts and if the suffering of black Americans is an area of elevated concern, then addressing the larger source of killing is a valid point of focus, even more so than the few instances of racial killings like the subjects of these threads.

And again, what is the goal? Is it racial harmony through civil rights and legal reform, or is it fostered animosity and role reversal?

That killings will always erupt in society is a given. That the basis of conflict will always include a range of reasons -- economic, social, racial, religious, romantic, etc. -- is also a given. In that light, a low incidence of racial killing is reprehensible, but hardly surprising, as it is just another dimension of dysfunctional individuals in a world peopled with misanthropes as well as functional people.

If this is what you legitimately believe then why has your main driving point been "black on black crime" as a way to drown out these instances? Why aren't you talking about all these purportedly equal and opposite black on white crimes that appear to be encouraged or empowered by bad laws that seem to endorse confrontational vigilantism?

Stand your Ground is a bad law. Why is this difficult to admit? And why do you keep going on and on about people going "nuts about Florida" when at least according to your info you don't even live there?

If anything rather than all of us engaging in some "concerted effort to exaggerate the race animus" I have seen actually you doing the complete opposite-- trying to be a crusader insisting that cases that actually DO look racially motivated are just our overactive imaginations and you can't assume bad laws or cowboy-minded white people who go up to minorities with a gun and do ILLEGAL THINGS (like demanding that they turn off their music, or stalking them on their way home holding iced tea and skittles) and wind up shooting them to death were remotely influenced by racial animosity?

When the stories start coming in with people claiming it was "self defense" after they shot white unarmed teenagers doing nothing wrong to death you'll have a leg to stand on here.

[pat grimshaw]

...Stand your Ground is a bad law. Why is this difficult to admit? And why do you keep going on and on about ...

Yes it is a ridiculous law.
But belabouring and inventing facts about this particular incident helps no one.

[xbuzzerx]

Yes it is a ridiculous law.
But belabouring and inventing facts about this particular incident helps no one.

No one invented anything other than from the perspective of people who believe it's completely ordinary to go up to unarmed teenagers and shoot them for no reason we can possibly fathom.

i.e. you and Hard-up.

[pat grimshaw]

^
Beachguy invented the 'fact' that people playing their music loud for two minutes was cause for shooting them in post #39

[xbuzzerx]

^
Beachguy invented the 'fact' that people playing their music loud for two minutes was cause for shooting them in post #39

This is your entire problem with the discussion?

Really you're just making it look more like what I already suspect which is that you'll grasp any possible nitpick as an excuse to absolve this guy of what the picture makes look most obvious.

[pat grimshaw]

This is your entire problem with the discussion?...

I believe in discussions using factual evidence but your comments back in #78 make me think you want free-wheeling, fast and loose, 'who shot John', assumptions, presumptions and prejudging.

[xbuzzerx]

I believe in discussions using factual evidence but your comments back in #78 make me think you want free-wheeling, fast and loose, 'who shot John', assumptions, presumptions and prejudging.

I'm sorry what details are exactly in dispute here?

There is nothing "free and loose" with the events of what happened here that would change the picture from "this guy flew off a handle and shot unarmed black kids who never even stepped out of their vehicle" to "oh maybe he was just defending himself."

[xbuzzerx]

It is the same topic: race and killings, and how they are related.

I've worked for black candidates to be elected. I have opposed racist individuals in my community. The imputation that anyone who doesn't merrily march along with every race thread on JUB is secretly a Klansman is lame.

Thankfully, that isn't what's happened nor since being active on the forums have I seen this happen. I actually see the direct opposite-- you seemingly gummy worming into various shapes to insist that we can't possibly conclude race played a role here or even looked like it did-- even though clearly it's one of the first things that enters people's minds when they hear about this case.

I mean next up did race play no role in the Trayvon case? I don't hear about a lot of white teenagers being stalked by neighborhood watchmen cowboys on their way home from 7-11 and then being shot to death because they were "threatening" with their skittles, but hey if those stories are out there, please bring them up.

The thread was and is an alarm about a black young man being slain as a racist white-on-black act. At every point I've agreed that the murder is reprehensible and not defensible. That said, it doesn't remove the pattern of these threads on JUB, which is the ongoing implication that race violence is somehow rampant in the U.S. and all the more in some states.

Me saying that the law in Florida is terrible would be the same whether the shooter had been purple and the kids had been fuschia. You would not catch me any less likely to say this is a stupid law that encourages cowboy vigilantism. In fact that's exactly how I've described the problem with this law multiple times, I haven't said it's a "race law telling whites to kill people", though clearly it is encouraging a few white people to take their perceptions of minorities being disruptive and dangerous and go out and handle that problem with a gun.

My point was and is that MANY MORE black men are killed by their own social and racial peers

Yes, you've made that point multiple times. So Hard-up let me ask you. If an American is decapitated overseas by a terrorist, how come people have any reaction to it at all? I mean look how many Americans die in car crashes everyday. Where's the outrage over that? We shouldn't have a war on terrorism. We should have a war on automobiles!

^That's your logic.

[pat grimshaw]

…^That's your logic.

Reductio ad absurdum (from the Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial… or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

[xbuzzerx]

Reductio ad absurdum (from the Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial… or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

His argument is equatum apple orangio.

Wingardium whitewashiosa!

[pat grimshaw]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

[xbuzzerx]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

And? What is that supposed to prove? It's easy to post a link... even easier not giving an argument regarding the topic.

Yeah I'm just going to ignore these little spout-offs with a link and no actual reasoning from now on because it's clear he is unwilling or incapable of actually articulating his viewpoint. It's clear what the viewpoint is but if he can't bother to post more than one line about it I guess that tells us all we need to know about its veracity.

And good post Tombastep. I agree totally that the "omg u ppl just make everything race all the time" blows up the topic more than any other factor. If those people really can't stand the discussion just don't enter it.

[pat grimshaw]

And? What is that supposed to prove? It's easy to post a link... even easier not giving an argument regarding the topic.

Oh Giancarlo, I see you have been muzzled for a week.

I'm not a Pit-bull who enjoys the testosterone rush of having aggressive, loud, vicious arguments for the sake of having aggressive, loud, vicious arguments. And I'm not a pitbull who bites without thinking... but I'm assuming that your brain didn't even register those graphs in the link in the three minutes between posts on the first of December before your brain told you to bite again.

I think those statistics are more eloquent than all your frenzied, angry biting and frothing at the mouth.

[xbuzzerx]

Oh Giancarlo, I see you have been muzzled for a week.

I'm not a Pit-bull who enjoys the testosterone rush of having aggressive, loud, vicious arguments for the sake of having aggressive, loud, vicious arguments. And I'm not a pitbull who bites without thinking... but I'm assuming that your brain didn't even register those graphs in the link in the three minutes between posts on the first of December before your brain told you to bite again.

I think those statistics are more eloquent than all your frenzied, angry biting and frothing at the mouth.

Of course they're completely off topic.

Who cares about honor killings, look at this chart of traffic deaths.

[pat grimshaw]

^ Hmm. . . a two minute delay.

You didn't even see the statistics. I'm now convinced YOU with your biting avatar and location are The New Giancarlo.

[xbuzzerx]

^ Hmm. . . a two minute delay.

You didn't even see the statistics. I'm now convinced YOU with your biting avatar and location are The New Giancarlo.

K. Think whatever you like, it's not like your reasoning has taken you very far in this topic.

[pat grimshaw]

^ he'll back soon, biting and snapping and frothing at the mouth.

[pat grimshaw]

I hope Dunn is prosecuted and the "Stand-your-ground Defence" is repealed. And I wish there was more evidence and less hysteria. I reckon if tasers can be fitted with cameras then guns should be too!

BTW: It seems ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense Rejected in this case
http://www.afro.com/sections/news/af...?storyid=76967