Killing unarmed black teenagers in Orlando is fine if you're white.

[Muckraker]

The crux of this argument, seems to be, if using deadly violence against somebody with a gun, for stalking you, is a reasonable response.

I'll try to keep it short this time since I expect you won't respond.

Your fists are not the tools of "deadly violence" unless you are Chuck Norris. Martin proved he is not Chuck Norris because he died during a melee encounter with an inexperienced fighter.

And again--if the person following you has a machete instead of a gun do you feel more or less threatened? A gun is versatile and effective at range--and up-close if it happens to be in your hand already. A machete is useless at range and its effectiveness both as a tool of intimidation and as a useable weapon is completely eliminated if the target simply runs away.

And if nobody here would personally confront their follower, punch them in the face and then smash his head against the ground, then it cast serious doubts on whether it was a reasonable response.

If the person with the gun cuts off your escape and you suddenly find yourself in melee range it is the only option. Unless, of course, you want to bet your life on the mercy of the person chasing you or their inability to shoot a moving target.

You may be perfectly fine with doing whatever your confronter says and hoping he doesn't shoot you anyway. Some of us would prefer to have control of our lives and take the advantage of openings when they arise.

[Trojan_Ripper]

All I have seen lately on this thread is the same shit just being rehashed, with a twist here and there.

Basically we have people who put more relevance to Trayvons girlfriend’s phone call then the accounts presented by 2 Eye witnesses on the scene. They are discounted for some reason. ABC even went as far as naming the 13 year old witness Austin Brown,(why the fuck name him?) and the other eye witness John…who is still just John… but everyone is supposed to believe the girl on the phone who wants’ to be known only as Deedee.

So we are supposed to believe DeeDee the girlfriend who was on the phone and hasn’t been interviewed publically….we are not supposed to believe the bias Zimmerman family who are speaking for their hiding brother or son... who also have been interviewed publically….and don’t believe Joe Oliver a character witness and close black friend who has been publically interviewed…but then we are left to wonder where Trayvons character witnesses are. Maybe they are out getting trademarks?

Then again maybe DeeDee needs another month to remember more of the conversation while waiting on the best big buck offer for a public interview. Who could blame her, eh?

Then we have people who adamantly state they hear the word ‘coons’ which even the best sound engineers won’t admit. I bet those same people can hear me right now through their computer speakers or headphones saying bullshit.

Then we have those who swear Zimmerman doesn’t have any wounds because they don’t see them on the video supplied by ABC. Then video technicians enhance images to show a wound on the back of Zimmermans head. Then these same people say…. Not good enough, the video is too grainy…can’t tell…

Then we get maps of the condo complex showing where the shooting took place. Also supplied is a large area showing where Zimmerman’s vehicle “may have been”. Yippee, cool stuff….now what does it tell us? Does this prove (beyond all reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman was not returning to his vehicle when attacked by Trayvon?

Then Trayvon decided to run after telling Deedee he wasn’t going to run? But then he couldn’t outrun Zimmerman? Then Trayvon got pushed….alrighty then.

The FBI has decided to intervene, and with good reason. It's amateur hour in Sanford, Florida, or worse--a criminal coverup. I have no doubt what the pro-Zimmerman people will think of an FBI investigation.

The F.B.I. has been involved for over 2 weeks. They are pretty good at discovering cover-ups, analyzing audio and video tapes, that sort of stuff. While being methodical they might be a little slow since they haven’t made an arrest yet. I don’t know why Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested for carrying the gun that some say was against the law. That simple charge should have been established early by the F.B.I wouldn’t you think?

So did CNN get this right?

At first glance, the death of Trayvon Martin seemed to be a straightforward example of ugly, racial conflict resulting in the killing of an innocent black teenager by a white man, George Zimmerman. But now, as evidence continues to come forward, the facts seem much more complicated and the "obvious truth" premature.

The Miami Herald reported that in the gated community in which Zimmerman patrolled, there were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the past year. Neighbors of Zimmerman described him as being passionate about security and credit him with thwarting and cracking some crimes. It was also revealed that Zimmerman identified himself as a Hispanic and was a registered Democrat.

The facts are confounding and inconclusive. But the tendency in the first days by some, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and an angry chorus of followers, was to rush to judgment with little regard for fairness, due process, or respect for the terrible death of a young man

A mob mentality seems to be in the ascendancy.

Rush to judgment in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

Then you have Al Sharpton calling for breaking the law through ‘civil disobedience’ until Zimmerman is arrested. Inciting racial tensions and fanning the flames of discord and rebellion without knowing what is even happening with the case. This man and others like him including Spike Lee, and Roseanne Barr, will instead need to be behind bars if their rhetoric, stupidity, and total self absorption gets even one person a paper cut, assaulted, or god forbid a death.

This is about JUSTICE!....Justice for Zimmerman as well as Trayvon. *This isn’t a two way street that should be allowed to turn into a one way 'railroad' track.

*trademark applied for*

George Zimmerman Trayvon Al Sharpton: Rev. Al Sharpton will escalate efforts if George Zimmerman isn't arrested in Trayvon's death. - Orlando Sentinel

[Maryjane]

I dont think so.

I'll be crystal clear so there is no more confusion...If you think it's an acceptable practice for members on this forum to personally insult other members by calling them whitey, spic, nigger, etc...then you haven't read the rules, nor have you been paying attention to the warnings handed out for previous transgressions. You can have your opinions. What you can not do is personally insult the membership when you express them.

The crux of this argument, seems to be, if using deadly violence against somebody with a gun, for stalking you, is a reasonable response.

I haven't read or heard the latest newscast on this case, but I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is alive somewhere on this planet. He's walking around after being treated by an emergency crew for cuts. He was not admitted to the hospital. Martin, however, was admitted to the morgue.

And if nobody here would personally confront their follower, punch them in the face and then smash his head against the ground, then it cast serious doubts on whether it was a reasonable response.

You seem so sure of this and yet you have no issue with Zimmerman following a "suspicious asshole" in the dark who according to Z's statement to the 911 operator "had his hand in his waist, was carrying something, acting suspicious, and on drugs... or something."

Would you maryjane, do what Martin did? Doubt it. I sincerly expect you would of choosen the many non-violent options available to you, like most people here would.

What's with people having expectations of me on this site? Are you aware, you don't know me?. Hopefully, you're not assuming I'd choose a non-violent option because I'm female? That would be sexist. If I feared being raped, killed, or abducted, because of a stalker who's carrying a gun when walking in my neighborhood, I'd put all my strength into incapacitating the person I feared was going to do me harm should they get too close and impede my progress to my destination. I'd then get a good lawyer and worry about the consequences (as well as the eventual character assassinations) afterwards.

That was another situation.

Fight or flight, fight or flight, fight or flight! Those are the voices talking to each other inside a person's head in a crisis situation.

(racist quote removed)

Yeah...damn those black kids for shooting up all those public schools and colleges~ The criminal profile of a serial killer? Notoriously Caucasian males...Was any member on this board as shocked as I was when the DC snipers, who paralyzed the entire Mid Atlantic coast, turned out to be two African Americans?

P.S: Statistically white people are alot less likely to be violent then black people, therefore its not racist to assume you (edit) are more apphresive to use violence.

Hopefully, I've made my points...Start a new thread on the topic of race and violence if you wish to carry on this discussion.

Yes I do blame him, I blame the black culture which breeds contempt for police officers, and I blame him for buying into that bullshit. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about, you hold yourself to one standard ("of course I would call the police"), but for martin, hes justified in taking the law into his own hands and not calling the police ("hes black, off course he should distrust police"). At the risk of sounding more racist, I'm getting the ugly impression that alot of this is about applying two diffrent standards to diffrent types of peoples, one for the privilleged white people, and one for poor victimised blacks.

At the risk of sounding racist? Why stop now, after coming this far?

I wish I had made a videotape of the federal judge's direct questioning of a senior citizen during a jury selection I participated in a few years ago. The judge gave the man, as well as the entire courtroom, a lecture about having absolute trust in the police and the testimony they might give in court.

Since when does an occupation guarantee someone's character? That's right...it doesn't. BTW...the judge and the elderly man in my little story...were Caucasians.

[lsbskins1]

All I have seen lately on this thread is the same shit just being rehashed, with a twist here and there.

Basically we have people who put more relevance to Trayvons girlfriend’s phone call then the accounts presented by 2 Eye witnesses on the scene. They are discounted for some reason. ABC even went as far as naming the 13 year old witness Austin Brown,(why the fuck name him?) and the other eye witness John…who is still just John… but everyone is supposed to believe the girl on the phone who wants’ to be known only as Deedee.

So we are supposed to believe DeeDee the girlfriend who was on the phone and hasn’t been interviewed publically….we are not supposed to believe the bias Zimmerman family who are speaking for their hiding brother or son... who also have been interviewed publically….and don’t believe Joe Oliver a character witness and close black friend who has been publically interviewed…but then we are left to wonder where Trayvons character witnesses are. Maybe they are out getting trademarks?

Then again maybe DeeDee needs another month to remember more of the conversation while waiting on the best big buck offer for a public interview. Who could blame her, eh?

Then we have people who adamantly state they hear the word ‘coons’ which even the best sound engineers won’t admit. I bet those same people can hear me right now through their computer speakers or headphones saying bullshit.

Then we have those who swear Zimmerman doesn’t have any wounds because they don’t see them on the video supplied by ABC. Then video technicians enhance images to show a wound on the back of Zimmermans head. Then these same people say…. Not good enough, the video is too grainy…can’t tell…

Then we get maps of the condo complex showing where the shooting took place. Also supplied is a large area showing where Zimmerman’s vehicle “may have been”. Yippee, cool stuff….now what does it tell us? Does this prove (beyond all reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman was not returning to his vehicle when attacked by Trayvon?

Then Trayvon decided to run after telling Deedee he wasn’t going to run? But then he couldn’t outrun Zimmerman? Then Trayvon got pushed….alrighty then.



The F.B.I. has been involved for over 2 weeks. They are pretty good at discovering cover-ups, analyzing audio and video tapes, that sort of stuff. While being methodical they might be a little slow since they haven’t made an arrest yet. I don’t know why Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested for carrying the gun that some say was against the law. That simple charge should have been established early by the F.B.I wouldn’t you think?

So did CNN get this right?

At first glance, the death of Trayvon Martin seemed to be a straightforward example of ugly, racial conflict resulting in the killing of an innocent black teenager by a white man, George Zimmerman. But now, as evidence continues to come forward, the facts seem much more complicated and the "obvious truth" premature.

The Miami Herald reported that in the gated community in which Zimmerman patrolled, there were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the past year. Neighbors of Zimmerman described him as being passionate about security and credit him with thwarting and cracking some crimes. It was also revealed that Zimmerman identified himself as a Hispanic and was a registered Democrat.

The facts are confounding and inconclusive. But the tendency in the first days by some, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and an angry chorus of followers, was to rush to judgment with little regard for fairness, due process, or respect for the terrible death of a young man

A mob mentality seems to be in the ascendancy.

Rush to judgment in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

Then you have Al Sharpton calling for breaking the law through ‘civil disobedience’ until Zimmerman is arrested. Inciting racial tensions and fanning the flames of discord and rebellion without knowing what is even happening with the case. This man and others like him including Spike Lee, and Roseanne Barr, will instead need to be behind bars if their rhetoric, stupidity, and total self absorption gets even one person a paper cut, assaulted, or god forbid a death.

This is about JUSTICE!....Justice for Zimmerman as well as Trayvon. *This isn’t a two way street that should be allowed to turn into a one way 'railroad' track.

*trademark applied for*

George Zimmerman Trayvon Al Sharpton: Rev. Al Sharpton will escalate efforts if George Zimmerman isn't arrested in Trayvon's death. - Orlando Sentinel

I would just like to point out that I haven't seen one person on this forum suggesting that Zimmerman be assumed guilty and thrown in jail without a trial. That you swing the rhetoric that far is evidence of your bias in this game. So, I would like to state what I would like to see happen in this case:

I would like to see a serious investigation that does not assume Zimmerman is either a victim or a criminal, but rather gathers evidence and then puts that evidence before a grand jury who can determine if it is sufficient to indict and take a case to court. With the information that is public, and with my knowledge of the law in general, I suspect an indictment would be obtained. The very fact that there is so much disagreement about the case is prima facia evidence of the need for a jury to act as finders of fact. It is neither absolutely clear that Zimmerman was justified, nor is it absolutely clear that he was not. That is why you have a trial. What I want is a damn trial. Not a show trial, not "lock him up right now, we know all we need to know", but a damn trail.

My opinion is my opinion based on what I have seen, heard and read. I would probably be excluded from the jury because I have followed this story pretty closely. But, if I came to this case cold, and saw and heard on the stand what I have seen and heard through news reports, my opinion would be the same. I understand that it is possible that there is relevant information out there that could change my view that I have not seen or heard. But I also understand that charges are not only brought in "smoking gun" cases. Only the silly and the guilty insist on the "prove it couldn't be any other answer before you even try me" standard. Ted Bundy would have never been convicted of anything if that was the way it worked. And guess what? He was brought to trial originally because he had a bag with rope, trash bags, a flash light, an ice pick and a ski mask in his car. Do any of those items constitute "proof" he was a cold blooded serial murderer? All of those things are currently in my house. I'm not a serial murderer. It was that they were in his car AND he ran from a cop AND where ever he lived, girls died, AND the not exactly stellar but still present indentifications of a few people who saw a man they thought was Bundy in proximity to several abductions. Taken in isolation, none of those things "prove" shit. Put the pebbles on the scale, and it all comes together. You put the pebbles on the scale in a court room in front of jurors. That is what I want.

[Darklordabc]

And again--if the person following you has a machete instead of a gun do you feel more or less threatened? A gun is versatile and effective at range--and up-close if it happens to be in your hand already. A machete is useless at range and its effectiveness both as a tool of intimidation and as a useable weapon is completely eliminated if the target simply runs away.

A Machete would be more threating, but I'm assuming having a holesterd gun is a lot more common in what ever state this happened then somebody walking around with a machete. A gun is the expected tool of self-defense in the places where its legal, somebody with a samurai sword, axe or a machete would be more threatening simple because its not a rational thing to be carrying.

If the person with the gun cuts off your escape and you suddenly find yourself in melee range it is the only option. Unless, of course, you want to bet your life on the mercy of the person chasing you or their inability to shoot a moving target.

Cuts you off? Did that happen? I heard Zimmerman lost Martin, and then martin returned and conronted him? Either way, lets just say he did cut me off, I would ask him what he wanted, I would talk it out, and given this particular case, choosing talking was the right choice, wasnt it? I simply dont accept your alegraba that attacking somebody with a gun is the best option, in nearly 99% of cases, talking would be the better option, I think you might have over-confidence in your ability to disarm somebody

You may be perfectly fine with doing whatever your confronter says and hoping he doesn't shoot you anyway. Some of us would prefer to have control of our lives and take the advantage of openings when they arise.

So in all honesty, you would of responded in the same way if you were in Martins position? Your going to be an action man and punch somebody in the face, over talking it out?

I haven't read or heard the latest newscast on this case, but I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is alive somewhere on this planet. He's walking around after being treated by an emergency crew for cuts. He was not admitted to the hospital. Martin, however, was admitted to the morgue.

Your fists are not the tools of "deadly violence" unless you are Chuck Norris. Martin proved he is not Chuck Norris because he died during a melee encounter with an inexperienced fighter.

Many many people have died from one punch. Even more have died from repteated punches and getting there head smashed on the ground. Just because Zimmerman is still alive, doesnt say anything. Lots of gunshot victims are still alive, doesnt mean guns arent deadly.

You seem so sure of this and yet you have no issue with Zimmerman following a "suspicious asshole" in the dark who according to Z's statement to the 911 operator "had his hand in his waist, was carrying something, acting suspicious, and on drugs... or something."

He was a neighbourhood watch captain. Its innapriorite for him to follow suspicious people? Please! Martin was suspicious, his race, gender, cloting and reactions all added up to suspicious, at least suspicious enough to warrant following by a neighbourhood watch captain. And even if I thought Zimmerman was doing innaprioriate following, it still would'nt justify sombody using deadly violence against him.

What's with people having expectations of me on this site? Are you aware, you don't know me?. Hopefully, you're not assuming I'd choose a non-violent option because I'm female? That would be sexist. If I feared being raped, killed, or abducted, because of a stalker who's carrying a gun when walking in my neighborhood, I'd put all my strength into incapacitating the person I feared was going to do me harm should they get too close and impede my progress to my destination. I'd then get a good lawyer and worry about the consequences (as well as the eventual character assassinations) afterwards.

I'm talking specifically the situation Martin found himself in. You dont think you might of called the police first? or tried to neogitate with your follower? I would of. And it is not sexiest to assume a woman is less likely to resort to violence then a man. It is common sense, the same way it is common sense to assume a black person is more dangerous.

Fight or flight, fight or flight, fight or flight! Those are the voices talking to each other inside a person's head in a crisis situation.

What about calling the police? Talking to the person? Why werent these voices going through his head too?

Yeah...damn those black kids for shooting up all those public schools and colleges~ The criminal profile of a serial killer? Notoriously Caucasian males...Was any member on this board as shocked as I was when the DC snipers, who paralyzed the entire Mid Atlantic coast, turned out to be two African Americans?

Even with whites being more likely to be serial killers, it doesnt change the overrall statics that show blacks are much more likely to be killers.

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

The judge gave the man, as well as the entire courtroom, a lecture about having absolute trust in the police and the testimony they might give in court.

The study mentioned in the the above link, shows that police discrimination against blacks is pretty much a myth. It shows that police rates of arresting black people, match up perfectly with victim statements saying what color their attackers were.

Heres a question for you MuckRaker or MaryJane: If martin had a gun, would he be justified in blowing Zimmermans head off, because he felt threatened and his fight and flight response was kicking in? What if Zimmeran was an old lady? Would martin still be justified in blowing her face off, because he felt 'threatened'?

[el ايمان]

A gun is the expected tool of self-defense in the places where its legal

Not really. I live in Florida, and it's not exactly an expectation that any given person is carrying a gun.

He was a neighbourhood watch captain.

Disputed.

Its innapriorite for him to follow suspicious people? Please! Martin was suspicious, his race, gender, cloting and reactions all added up to suspicious, at least suspicious enough to warrant following by a neighbourhood watch captain.

To a bigot, maybe. Black people are not inherently suspicious. Men are not inherently suspicious. Hooded sweatshirts are not inherently suspicious. Noticing that you are being watched and then moving away from the person watching you is not inherently suspicious. One would have to be prejudiced to think that any combination of these is suspicious and demands further investigation.

And it is not sexiest to assume a woman is less likely to resort to violence then a man. It is common sense, the same way it is common sense to assume a black person is more dangerous.

Actually, that is sexist, the same way that assuming a black person is more dangerous than a white person is racist. Blackness does not make a person inherently more dangerous than whiteness, just as having a penis does not make a person inherently more dangerous than a woman.

[Darklordabc]

Actually, that is sexist, the same way that assuming a black person is more dangerous than a white person is racist. Blackness does not make a person inherently more dangerous than whiteness, just as having a penis does not make a person inherently more dangerous than a woman.

If your willing to tell me that you view women as dangerous as men, your either not thinking about it, or your being not being intellectually honest. You'd would just as likely walk through a group of men through a dark park, then a group of drunk women? The fact of the matter is, men overwhelming commit violent acts more then women, to assume they are both as equally dangerous, is to assume a lion is as dangerous as a gazelle. In nearly the same ratio, black people are more violent then white people. Fact.

Blackness does not make a person inherently more dangerous than whiteness, just as having a penis does not make a person inherently more dangerous than a woman.

No, pigmentation and a penis alone wouldn't account for much difference in behavior. But the sexes differ in much more then genitals, and the races differ much more then in color.

To a bigot, maybe. Black people are not inherently suspicious. Men are not inherently suspicious. Hooded sweatshirts are not inherently suspicious.

I imagine you would call the security at the airport that prioritize young arab men over old asian women, bigoted too. Because if you try using statistics to evalute the risks of certain individuals, you must be a bigot right?
"What? 99% of terrorists are young arab men? Bigot!"

[Darklordabc]

Double post

[lsbskins1]

If your willing to tell me that you view women as dangerous as men, your either not thinking about it, or your being not being intellectually honest. You'd would just as likely walk through a group of men through a dark park, then a group of drunk women? The fact of the matter is, men overwhelming commit violent acts more then women, to assume they are both as equally dangerous, is to assume a lion is as dangerous as a gazelle. In nearly the same ratio, black people are more violent then white people. Fact.

No, pigmentation and a penis alone wouldn't account for much difference in behavior. But the sexes differ in much more then genitals, and the races differ much more then in color.

I imagine you would call the security at the airport that prioritize young arab men over old asian women, bigoted too. Because if you try using statistics to evalute the risks of certain individuals, you must be a bigot right?
"What? 99% of terrorists are young arab men? Bigot!"

Statistically speaking, most pedophiles are white males. Do I get to assume you are a pedophile because of that or would you be a little pissed if every time you went to a place where children might be, you got stopped and questioned about why you were there? You are a white male, aren't you? "Why are you at this baseball game with all these little kids present? What are you doing, sitting at this table at McDonalds? Are you trolling for victims? You fit the profile of those who do, you know. Don't give me any attitude. You know I am just following the numbers."

[lsbskins1]

If your willing to tell me that you view women as dangerous as men, your either not thinking about it, or your being not being intellectually honest. You'd would just as likely walk through a group of men through a dark park, then a group of drunk women? The fact of the matter is, men overwhelming commit violent acts more then women, to assume they are both as equally dangerous, is to assume a lion is as dangerous as a gazelle. In nearly the same ratio, black people are more violent then white people. Fact.

No, pigmentation and a penis alone wouldn't account for much difference in behavior. But the sexes differ in much more then genitals, and the races differ much more then in color.

I imagine you would call the security at the airport that prioritize young arab men over old asian women, bigoted too. Because if you try using statistics to evalute the risks of certain individuals, you must be a bigot right?
"What? 99% of terrorists are young arab men? Bigot!"

Statistically speaking, most pedophiles are white males. Do I get to assume you are a pedophile because of that or would you be a little pissed if every time you went to a place where children might be, you got stopped and questioned about why you were there? You are a white male, aren't you? "Why are you at this baseball game with all these little kids present? What are you doing, sitting at this table at McDonalds? Are you trolling for victims? You fit the profile of those who do, you know. Don't give me any attitude. You know I am just following the numbers."

This is simply me showing you that even if we give your statistical analysis assumptions the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, you are still wrong. Even if blacks were not just convicted of crimes at a much higher rate and were actually, factually, somehow inherently more violent than whites, it is still true that the MAJORITY of black males are not violent criminals and if you assume the particular one you are looking at is one, you are more likely to be wrong than right. Even if 99% of terrorists were young Arab males (they aren't), it would still be true that the MAJORITY of young Arab males are not terrorists and your assumptions about their danger as individuals would be wrong the majority of the time; just as the statistical chance that the particular white male that is you is an actual pedophile is pretty low and because of that, I don't need to be making that assumption or to be harrassing you at baseball games or your local McDonalds.

[Darklordabc]

Statistically speaking, most pedophiles are white males. Do I get to assume you are a pedophile because of that or would you be a little pissed if every time you went to a place where children might be, you got stopped and questioned about why you were there? You are a white male, aren't you? "Why are you at this baseball game with all these little kids present? What are you doing, sitting at this table at McDonalds? Are you trolling for victims? You fit the profile of those who do, you know. Don't give me any attitude. You know I am just following the numbers."

This is simply me showing you that even if we give your statistical analysis assumptions the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, you are still wrong. Even if blacks were not just convicted of crimes at a much higher rate and were actually, factually, somehow inherently more violent than whites, it is still true that the MAJORITY of black males are not violent criminals and if you assume the particular one you are looking at is one, you are more likely to be wrong than right. Even if 99% of terrorists were young Arab males (they aren't), it would still be true that the MAJORITY of young Arab males are not terrorists and your assumptions about their danger as individuals would be wrong the majority of the time.

I'm not arguing we should throw all blacks and young Arabs in jail, only that race, like gender, like religion, and many other external identifiers, is a legitimate factor in assessing treats. Like wise, I'm not saying all men are dangerous, except that their statistically likelihood to commit violence, is a relevant factor in determining their threat level. I'm responding to the double standards, that allows gender to be a fair target for profiling, but race, for some reason isn't.

[lsbskins1]

I'm not arguing we should throw all blacks and young Arabs in jail, only that race, like gender, like religion, and many other external identifiers, is a legitimate factor in assessing treats. Like wise, I'm not saying all men are dangerous, except that their statistically likelihood to commit violence, is a relevant factor in determining their threat level. I'm responding to the double standards, that allows gender to be a fair target for profiling, but race, for some reason isn't.

You are arguing that they should be viewed with suspicion based on an external characteristic and that they should expect that suspicion and passively accept increased scrutiny. I'm asking you, would you remain as calm and accepting of that level of constant attention and suspicion if it was aimed at you in the circumstance I laid out? Would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, I guess I do need to justify my being in proximity to children whenever someone takes the notion to wonder about me because I do fit that external pedophile profile" or would you become more and more angry every time it happened?