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

[xbuzzerx]

exactly what I said after the story too incidentally... before people made posters for it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, I'm trying to say that the outrage is very selective, and with the intent of portraying black teen as hapless victims of white brutality via vigilante actions.

And I don't see how you can view the Trayvon case OR this case as anything but exactly that. These were not guys out on the streets with weapons and running drugs or breaking people's windows. They were, as far as we can tell, just being utterly normal teenagers and they're dead because people who inherently think of most/all black males as threatening in any situation started confrontations with them while carrying a gun and apparently in the belief that Florida law justified what they were doing--- even in this case, the man is claiming that shooting someone unarmed in the back seat of a car was "self defense."

What do you conclude from that?

I've completely agreed that these cases are exactly that, most likely, but that choosing to focus on that as the problem needing great attention and outrage is disingenuous when the same killing is taking the lives of many, many more young black men, and at the hands of their own race and for reasons just as senseless.

It's not disingenuous at all. Those other deaths you are referring to are not happening because a really, really bad law is giving people a cowboy mindset to go out into the street with their gun and fix problems which wind up with an unarmed teenager dead for absolutely no reason.

It is an inconvenient truth, and denied effectively by extinction by the same posters on this forum who repeatedly raise the white-on-black racism issue. If white vigilante killings are the big problem in the US, then what exactly are the black killings, acceptable?

Who said they are acceptable? We said it's apples and oranges, you are the only one discussing it here because this thread IS ABOUT THE VIGILANTE KILLINGS. However if a law was specifically creating the legal gray-area which ENCOURAGED perpetrators of black-on-black violent crime to go out and do it, yes, I would be taking exception to that law too.

 

[The Fly]

I appologise to anyone I offended, it was an attempt at sarcasm that obviously failed. But that dosen't change the fact that people are sreaming racism before anyone knows the full details of what happened. A white person shot a black person, so far that's all we know. That racial dynamic dosen't automaticaly eqaute to racism.
Had Dunn been a black guy he may have shot that kid. Had the kid been white Dunn may have still shot him. Was there racism? Possibly/probably, but there are other variables to considder. Dunn was comming from a wedding (probably drinking) stopped at a convience store (buying beer?) notices/hears a SUV blarring load music, Dunn pumps up his beer muscles to go and put these kids in line. Dunn asks/tells the kids to turn the music down, a verbal exchange occurs, Dunn fires 8-9 times killing the kid in the back seat then runs, turning himself in the next day (after consulting an attourney no doubt)
You can speculate till the cows come home but there is no overt act or statement pointing to a racial bias or motivation that we know of yet.

Man, I am white and I always roll my eyes when people say things like this.

.
.
.
I don't know why you feel you should share your racial indentity with me, but ....congrats on your whiteness......I'm not.

 

[The Fly]

And there are ALWAYS people who try to make these cases not seem racist at all no matter how much they actually are or appear to be. And someone not screaming racial slurs does not = not racist.

I never said there was "NO" racism, I have no idea what's in the shooters heart, nor do you. Just because there's a conflict between 2 people of different races dosen't automaticaly mean it's a racialy driven event. It seems that there are a few folks around who are hyper-vigilant to anything that could be construed as racialy motivated.
If it is proven that Dunn's motivation was racism, not loud music, then he would deserve to have the hate crime charging/sentencing enhansment leveled against him. But the constant drumbeat of racism is bullshit. The race of the shooter and victim in this case is errelevant unless you can show that that difference was "THE" motivating factor.
At the end of the day, it really dosen't matter how it "appears". When you look at life through the distorted prism of racism/victim hood, you just become convinced that "those" people are out to get you.
As far as "people who try to make theses cases seem not racist at all", thier vision is no better/worse than yours. One group has thier collective heads in the sand and the others (you) are running around like chicken little. Stop, catch a breath, an examine the known facts in the case and proceed from there.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...it is a typical thing I hear from white people and it is embarrassing comment to make.

You are too easily embarrassed.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I never said there was "NO" racism, I have no idea what's in the shooters heart, nor do you. Just because there's a conflict between 2 people of different races dosen't automaticaly mean it's a racialy driven event. It seems that there are a few folks around who are hyper-vigilant to anything that could be construed as racialy motivated.
If it is proven that Dunn's motivation was racism, not loud music, then he would deserve to have the hate crime charging/sentencing enhansment leveled against him. But the constant drumbeat of racism is bullshit. The race of the shooter and victim in this case is errelevant unless you can show that that difference was "THE" motivating factor.
At the end of the day, it really dosen't matter how it "appears". When you look at life through the distorted prism of racism/victim hood, you just become convinced that "those" people are out to get you.
As far as "people who try to make theses cases seem not racist at all", thier vision is no better/worse than yours. One group has thier collective heads in the sand and the others (you) are running around like chicken little. Stop, catch a breath, an examine the known facts in the case and proceed from there.

So do I understand your post correctly that it bothers you a lot more that someone might think a white guy going up to black kids in a car and shooting them with absolutely no physical threat might have been racially motivated than that a guy went up to some teenagers and shot them?

Given the other recent case in Florida and given its horrible law giving people the belief that this kind of behavior is "self-defense" and you have white guys initiating confrontations with black teenagers which end in "self-defense shootings", it's perfectly reasonable to believe race is involved.

 

[The Fly]

I didn't say I knew what was in the shooters heart and didn't say anywhere that this was most definitely based on race but the situation is highly questionable. And no two people of different race having a conflict doesn't equal a racist conflict, what I was saying that just because someone wasn't spouting racial slurs doesn't mean it wasn't a racial based crime.



How am I running around like a little chicken? But if I am I guess it's better than you back pedaling by calling your initial response "sarcasm". I never claimed that this was most definitely a racist crime or that I knew all the facts, but as quickly as people are willing to call this a racist crime there are the same people who will quickly claim it is not, facts or not.

I didn't call you a "little Chicken", I referenced a characer from a kids book, Chicken Little, who has a acorn fall on his head and jumps to the conclusion that the sky is falling and runs around proclaiming such. (I assumed Chicken Little was a more widely known character, sorry).
Also, the reference to "you" was not meant as you an individual, but rather you as a part of the collective that continues to promote the narrative as a cut and dried case of racialy inspired violence.
I love this part "I never claimed that this was most definitely a racist crime or that I new all the facts..." Would that be backpeddaling or an attempt at revisionist history.
You asserted a conclusion based on incomplete reporting and what appears to be a personaly held bias. I have no idea if this was racialy motivated and I am not claiming it was or wasn't. I, like you, am without all the facts, the difference is, I asume the best while you assume the worst.

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ 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.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...I understand your post correctly ....

...you presume this guy ...(my assumption)...to assume ... interpretation.

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

 

[The Fly]

So do I understand your post correctly that it bothers you a lot more that someone might think a white guy going up to black kids in a car and shooting them with absolutely no physical threat might have been racially motivated than that a guy went up to some teenagers and shot them?

Given the other recent case in Florida and given its horrible law giving people the belief that this kind of behavior is "self-defense" and you have white guys initiating confrontations with black teenagers which end in "self-defense shootings", it's perfectly reasonable to believe race is involved.

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.

 

[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.