The debate "Is Black Lives Matter a Black Surpremacy group" was started by
May 25, 2016, 12:27 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Austin7779 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 18 arguments to the disagreers part.
Austin7779, josh_rocks, joey, Dev and 6 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, RyanWakefield, SwaggerPoptart and 10 visitors disagree.
I have to call it a night. tomorrow I will try to dig up more evidence
Trayvon's rights were being violated. he was being harassed.
Following outside of his car makes it vigilante action? There was no reason to suggest interrogation or arrest, but that the police would be contacted with the location again, since Trayvon was indeed moving. The connotation is however you want to word it, but following is not aggression
he got out of his car and gave chase, that is vigilante action and that is documented as fact in the 911 call.
Following is not a vigilante action, and following by itself is not harassment. Suspicious activity can be speculated, but Trayvon was not provoked to attack, and as noted with the phone call with his girlfriend, he was paranoid. The thought to attack originated in his head, not by a confronting factor.
harassment is a crime, and being a vigilante is against the law for this very reason.
"Bullshit" isn't for you to determine, and his suspicious activity wouldn't be a determining factor, and even if he was following for a gut reason, it wasn't meddling unless an altercation occurs. He didn't hold Trayvon at gunpoint, which is certain. Details regarding character, as mentioned outside the case and in this debate can only suggest, not prove he was telling the truth on suspicious activity, though marijuana in his system does help
Normal people would call a situation in and let the police handle it, though in this case keeping track isn't meddling or normal. Still, he was told he didn't have to, which can also mean it was unnecessary not prohibited.
A vigilante sees a suspicious situation and investigates or even further interferes. It was not interfering or investigating, as it is suggested by the phone call that they had no conversation, and the confrontation occurred because Zimmerman was attacked, not the other way around.
what do you mean "handle it himself"?
what was he supposed to handle?
The issue of founding
The phone call itself didn't hold details in full, but it did say he was acting suspicious, which prompted a call. If he felt he could handle it by himself, why call?
The call for context, will be out for awhile, please be patient
there was nothing about cutting through yards on his 911 call, just "looking at homes" which is bullshit, he was just walking home from the grocery store.
already we see Zimmerman as someone who likes to bend the truth to his version of reality.
and this case was not the start of the movement, furgeouson was.
Zimmerman isn't an officer of the law, that is the focus of the movement, when people kill under the authority of the state.
are you sure you aren't just quoting Zimmerman's account, instead of established facts.
or are you suggesting a murder suspect has no reason to "bend" the truth?
He may not have been a cop or able to arrest, but he is able to inform the police, on what may have been connected to the string of robberies occurring in the neighborhood, so someone cutting through front and backyards instead of a straight line is rather odd. Then again, suspicious activity is as reported by Zimmerman, and Trayvon's character is not what was important in the trial.
The gun was at his side until it was fired, which was when he was against the ground. Like I said about following, it isn't a crime or aggressive action. He was an active member of the community, suspecting that something was wrong. Had he not been attacked, then he would have been wrong. Disputing whether or not he felt like being a vigilante or cop wannabe, the neighborhood watch program his neighborhood had provides lights for their cars, he refused the lights.
Physical harm is violent, and criminal.He had every opportunity to go home, which was not far off. Also, if the gun was drawn first, the obvious conclusion could be made.
fired = followed*
he pursued a person for no legitimate reason, was Trayvon Martin also not acting in self defense considering he was being fired?
according to the evidence, at what point did Zimmerman show his gun? that is an aggressive action by itself.
During the trial, I was on an internship where the workers constantly tuned into the trial, so I overheard and saw things as the trial progressed first-hand, that being the footage of the trial.
The trial, which provided evidence. No other need for that. For a conflict, there must have been an aggressor, correct? Zimmerman followed, but that is not evidence that he was the aggressor. He testified that he was attacked, and though admissable in court, a voice analyst was brought in... and concluded it was Zimmerman
where are you getting your series of events from?
Well, looking back on my comment Trayvon still died, but I meant to say that he would have died without harm to Zimmerman or wounded before a gunshot occurred. Stupid brain not connecting words together, my bad.
Though attacking a person should be enough to say something wrong was done, as his home was close enough to go to as mentioned during the trial. It was mentioned that he was exhibiting suspicious activity, cutting through yards. The details would extend beyond the trial, to how he was on suspension and before his suspension "lost jewelry" was found in his locker. Lost jelwery from robbed houses, but he wasn't suspended for that.
They argued under self defense, and depending on who started the fight (Trayvon) is on how this had to end. You would not argue that as a principle, or as a future law, that self defense is immoral. While Zimmerman did follow, he could not be established as the aggressor, and simple logical steps prove this. For example, the only wound on trayvon was the gunshot. Had Zimmerman been the aggressor then Trayvon would have either been wounded or killed. And this case is held in regard to racism, which has yet to be established.
the trial is irrelevant in the question of morality. it references yesterday's laws, I'm hoping to discuss tomorrow's laws. Zimmerman is innocent under the law, but not in history.
Treyvon did nothing wrong. he did not deserve to be killed. this should not be happening in America.
This is what I mean by disinformation. Stand your ground was discussed early on, but not pursued. The victory in court was not earned this way
he was innocent due to a stand your ground law, which itself is controversial.
Martin did absolutely nothing wrong in that scenario. he did not deserve to be killed.
The founding case then, The Martin case. Also becuase the defense established "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his innocence instead of guilt, which would pass even an inquisitorial system.
which case do you want to tackle first?
No resistance means he complied with the police?
The "Unarmed" part in these arguments also doesn't reserve as much weight as it is given.
Zimmerman may have taken boxing, but Trayvon took karate. There are no floor katas in boxing, and against a concrete ground, it is a dangerous combination. It is speculated that lean (poor man's pcp, a violent combination that usually requires two police units to detain) was commonly used by Trayvon, but that speculation cant be used.
Brown tried to arm himself with the officer's gun, and was much larger. Tazers sometimes don't work on individuals under the influence of drugs, which he was at this time.
Garner resisted arrest, and 'please' doesn't convince resisters to put both hands out for cuffs.
well start with a case, I really don't know them by name, mostly by situation.
can you demonstrate a any where near the number of police killing of unarmed white people, or other races? I don't know how much the nuance of any particular case will effect the injustice of so many incidents.
The case of the loosie cigarette seller getting chocked out and subdued by numerous officers despite putting up no resistance is pretty indefensible.
Sorry, app is bugging, but here's some things on the issue, in the Trayvon Martin case, a voice analyst determined the shout for help to be Zimmerman. In the Michael Brown case, blood in the patrol vehicle plus stagnation proved that not only was the officer attacked, but the hands up point was a myth. Plus, there were people who witnessed the situation that support it. For the Eric Garner case, the cause of death was not suffocation, he stopped breathing due to heart problems shutting down the body. The paramedics that came to help were at fault, and whenever the case is discussed, reasons such as "resisting arrest" and "well known offender" are mocked with the response "so he deserved to die because he was a thug?".
The movement asks for justice, but when the court finds a justice that doesn't align with theirs, they cry for blood. What can be said?
We would have to discuss on a case by case basis on disinformation or where information has been publicly available but not noted.
True about individuals, but I would like to see more done to stop blocking traffic or advocating against acquitted individuals.
I actually responded to you stating that the only violence happened right after the events of furgeuson and before the BLM movement got organized. the vast majority of the movement preaches nonviolence and decries anyone who tries to turn their protests into a riot.
of course some INDIVIDUALS just want to be reckless, but that is true of all peoples, and you cannot use them to blame an entire movement.
and what disinformation?
Agree with Nemiroff on the slogan issue, disagree on BLM being the vehicle of justice. My points have been made in a previous debate, but to recap and for reference, there are no end goals or checkpoints for BLM justice, many of the cases are on disinformation such as Trayvon Martin Micheal Brown or Eric Garner (Sandra Bland did not receive justice, on the other hand), and the group has not spoken against riots or held their protesters responsible for the actions they take during protests. The foundation was flawed, the group is unorganized (sometimes violent) and they have no endgame in mind.
if you say I love you to your mother does that mean you don't love your father?
saying black Lives matters does not negate other lives, it just so happens that currently most of the victims if these unjustified police killings are black. it is sad that we have to specifically remind people that the lives of a particular group also matter.
don't all lives matter not just black lives?
I don't see how asking police to stop shooting unarmed civilians is a supremacist movement.