Trayvon Martin

[eric42434224]

I have no idea what else Martin was wearing. But being black in a hoodie doesn't make you a gangsta wannabe. It was raining, perhaps the hood was to protect his head from the rain?

Fair enough.  I assumed he was dressed like a thug.

No, he was just wearing a hoodie.  I have a few hoodies myself, but I should be OK walking around town, since I'm white.

Not exactly.  If you had your pants way down, showing your underwear....walked with that "gansta lean", and had your head down a bit with your hoodie up hiding yopur face...walking slow....looking at houses....yes you would be stopped, or looked at with suspicion.  I have to admit, I would probably do the same, and have done so in the past.  It isnt racist.  It is a generalization and a stereotype of a dress and behavoir.  Unfortunately, many stereotypes exist because there is some truth to it.  If I saw that dress and behavoir in my neighborhood, I would be suspicious, regardless of race.

I saw two african american kids walking near my neighbors house last year.  Pants down, hoodies on with hoods up, and walking nice and slow.  They had just broken into my neighbors house.  As soon as I saw them, I was suspicious.
I didnt see two african american men in suits and ties.  It is a stereotype yes, but one that has at least some truth to it.

EDIT:  also, running is a suspicious behavoir....it would be to me if I asked someone what they were doing.  If I was walking in my neighborhood, and some guy asked me what I was doing, I would say "I live here...right over there on 76th terrace", and not in a confrontational tone.  That is behavoir that will likely not raise suspicion, or at least decrease it.
Not making any statements about this case in particular, but just pointing out that dress and behavoir of certain stereotypes will arouse suspicion....and there is some truth to the stereotypes.

[antigoon]

Do we even know what was going on below his waist?

[eric42434224]

Do we even know what was going on below his waist?

I doubt he was wearing skinny jeans, but I didnt bring up pants in regards to Travon specifically.  Just that certain dress and behavoir can raise suspicion, regardless of race.
Again, not specifically about this case, but I do think it is a good thing that people address suspicious behavoir in their neighborhood.  It is better to be safe than sorry. 

I live across from a park, and there are alot of kids coming and going.  Some are obviously troublemakers, kicking over stuff, causing property damage, yelling profanity.  I have a 3 and 6 yr old daughters, and I dont think some behavoir is appropriate in my neighborhood.  I confront them, and they change their behavoir, at least until out of my view.  If I see behavoir like I posted in the earlier post, I will just make myself VERY visible.  Usually with some gardening tool in hand LOL.

My only point was a general one.  You dont see kids robbing houses in 3 piece suits.  You see that type of behavoir from kids with certain dress and behavoir...and not exculsively "black kids in hoodies".  I have suspicions because there is some truth behind the stereotypes, and I need to be on guard to protect my family and possessions.

Are ALL kids dressed like that going to do something criminal?  Of course not.  But more dressed like that and acting like that will do something criminal than someone in a 3 piece suit.  JMO

[Adami]

Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.

[skydivingninja]

Do we even know what was going on below his waist?

Are ALL kids dressed like that going to do something criminal?  Of course not.  But more dressed like that and acting like that will do something criminal than someone in a 3 piece suit.  JMO

I'd like to introduce you to some friends.  They used to run these huge companies...Worldcom and Enron.

  Of course there is a valid point to the "clothes=first impressions" argument, but Zimmerman following a kid who happened to be black and wore a hoodie before he did anything suspicious other than just being there?  That's not justifiable paranoia or looking out for kids or your neighborhood, that's profiling. 

[bosk1]

Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.

Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.

[hefdaddy42]

   What race-baiting?

[Adami]

Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.

Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.

What? I can't tell if you're kidding. He admitted that it's something he is just assuming. How am I baiting?

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Didn't I read somewhere that he didn't actually live there, that he was staying at the dad's/dad's girlfriend's house while visiting?

[eric42434224]

Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.

I wasnt making up that ANYONE was "gangsta".  I said several times (I would suggest reading my posts) that I was not referring to Trayvon in particular, but that certain stereotypical appearance and behavoirs will arouse suspicion.  And that those stereotypes have some basis in truth.

Of course there is a valid point to the "clothes=first impressions" argument, but Zimmerman following a kid who happened to be black and wore a hoodie before he did anything suspicious other than just being there?  That's not justifiable paranoia or looking out for kids or your neighborhood, that's profiling.

Do we really know what his behavoir was?  It very well could have been suspicious.  I dont think it is, or can be, known what his actual behavoir was that night.  Saying he was "just being there" has no basis in fact or evidence.  We really dont know do we?

[Adami]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

[ehra]

Oh ok, so you're just making up that he was all gangsta. Gotcha.

Adami, stop the race baiting NOW.

What? I can't tell if you're kidding. He admitted that it's something he is just assuming. How am I baiting?

The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."

[bosk1]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

You're not allowed to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, no.  And you frequently do that.

[ehra]

What does "gangsta" have to do with race?

[Adami]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

You're not allowed to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, no.  And you frequently do that.

When did I do that? I said he was making it up. I didn't mention the word racist.

[eric42434224]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding.  I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.

[Adami]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding.  I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.

Fair enough. Just seemed random then. We're discussing Martin. Listing a bunch of other activity that might be considered suspicious seems random. I understand what you were trying to get at. But since this thread is about Martin, we're just saying that what he specifically did shouldn't be considered suspicious. Obviously other activity can be considered suspicious.

[eric42434224]

The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."

Wearing your pants low with a hoodie may not be suspicious behavior in and of itself.  When coupled with other behavoir in certain environments, it certainly adds to a suspicious assessment.  In a perfect world, no one would be suspicious of anyone else until they committed a bad act.  But then its too late.  Suspicion is hard wired in us as a survival mechanism, and there are truths behind most stereotypes, like it or not   

[Adami]

The only way I could see anyone considering your comment to be "race baiting" is if they already go in with the idea that "gangsta" = black. Wouldn't be too surprising, discussion about this part of the story seems to bring out a lot of crazy talk from people. Like statements that wearing your pants low and having the hood of your hoodie up is "suspicious behavior."

Wearing your pants low with a hoodie may not be suspicious behavior in and of itself.  When coupled with other behavoir in certain environments, it certainly adds to a suspicious assessment.  In a perfect world, no one would be suspicious of anyone else until they committed a bad act.  But then its too late.  Suspicion is hard wired in us as a survival mechanism, and there are truths behind most stereotypes, like it or not

I completely agree. But I haven't read anything about what Martin was wearing beyond a hoodie.

But whatever, since it seems me suggesting that not every human being judging this case is unbias and free of prejudice will get me banned, I will just bow out of this thread for good. Best of luck to everyone.

[ehra]

Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.

[eric42434224]

Well it seems I'm not allowed to suggest that Martin wasn't dressed as a gangster, so fair enough.

You posted it in response to my post, criticizing me for suggesting he was dressed like a ganster.
Just read the posts in their entirety before responding.  I didnt say anyhting about Travon, and thought I was very clear I wasnt even talking about him in particular.

Fair enough. Just seemed random then. We're discussing Martin. Listing a bunch of other activity that might be considered suspicious seems random. I understand what you were trying to get at. But since this thread is about Martin, we're just saying that what he specifically did shouldn't be considered suspicious. Obviously other activity can be considered suspicious.

Two points.

1) The discussion can take tangents and discuss general aspects, not just specifics.  I clearly even stated I wasnt talking about Travon specifically.  But this is a heated topic, so you may have glossed over it.  No harm, no foul.

2) We dont know what his behavoir specifically was that night.  His behavoir could have, when coupled with the appearance, been enough to cause suspicion in the average neighborhood resident.  To say he was doing nothing but just "being there" isnt supported by any evidence yet.

[eric42434224]

Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.

Judgements made on appearance are not "silly".  They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.

[El Barto]

Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.

Perhaps, but it's also human nature.  And lets be clear here.  The entire reason for some of these fashion trends is so that people WILL think they're thugs.

[ehra]

Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.

Judgements made on appearance are not "silly".  They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.

Judging that low pants and a hoodie with the hood up = suspicious behavior absolutely is silly. Just as much as skydivingninja's joke about people wearing suits being crooked business men.

[bosk1]

Slowly walking by houses while closely inspecting them is suspicious behavior regardless of how they're dressed. Bringing low pants or whatever other fashion tastes you don't agree with into it is silly.

Judgements made on appearance are not "silly".  They may not feel good to you in Utopia, but in the real world, they matter.

Judging that low pants and a hoodie with the hood up = suspicious behavior absolutely is silly. Just as much as skydivingninja's joke about people wearing suits being crooked business men.

All I can say is, a LOT of people disagree with you.  Personally, I think it depends on context, and there will be plenty of grey areas.  But some of those suspicions may be silly in some contexts while perfectly valid in others.  Wearing red shouldn't make people suspicious.  But if you live in certain gang-infested areas of some cities where simply wearing a color is a gang identifier, wearing red can get you beat up, arrested, or killed.  Whether it may seem rational is irrelevant.  It is just a fact.  It doesn't really make sense to just close your eyes to it and label it silly just because you or I might disagree with it being valid.

[ehra]

There's a pretty huge difference between "wearing clothes that matches the "uniform" of an active gang in the area is suspicious behavior" and a blanket "low pants and a hoodie is suspicious."

[bosk1]

Maybe yes, and maybe no.  Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious.  In some contexts, it is.  In others, it isn't.  But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts.  Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be.  But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.

[slycordinator]

The best point by point analysis I've seen yet.  And further proof that eye-witnesses aren't worth shit.


What is known, what isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death

Is there a way to forensically identify who's screaming in the 911 tapes?

I heard it reported that two forensic audio specialists claimed that the screams on the tape weren't that of Zimmerman with the second claiming it definitely was that of Martin. On the other hand, in the same report I heard an interview with an independent audio forensic specialist (though who hadn't heard the recording prior to the interview) who claimed that analysis of this type of thing is rarely, if ever, use screams as you have to compare to known real samples (that are going to be spoken and not screamed; hence changing a lot of aspects to the waves to look at) and *never* conclude only from audio analysis that the person is who the analysis concludes it is.

And before someone says I might've been listening to some Fox News thing, it was a BBC radio service.

If experts disagree, are you supposed to go by gut instinct? Can't do the rational thing.

I didn't go by gut instinct. I can, and do, the rational thing of listening to an expert and determining if their explanation sounds reasonable.

[ehra]

Maybe yes, and maybe no.  Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious.  In some contexts, it is.  In others, it isn't.  But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts.  Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be.  But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.

You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."

[bosk1]

Maybe yes, and maybe no.  Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious.  In some contexts, it is.  In others, it isn't.  But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts.  Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be.  But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.

You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."

But it's not that simple.  There are plenty of gang neighborhoods where there isn't a specific "uniform" or article of clothing--which is especially true in areas where police crack down on gangs, so the gang's become much more loose in what constitutes a gang identifier.  Rather than the plain white t-shirt example you gave, it could be as simple as having white anywhere on your clothing, period.  You could be dressed in jeans and a black t-shirt, but if you've got white shoes, you could be flagged.  You could be wearing blue sweats with a white stripe and be flagged. 

The point is simply that you can wear something that would be completely innocuous in many contexts, that can end up intentionally or unintentionally creating a negative label in other contexts.

[Ryzee]

What a few of you are calling "gangsta" or "thug" attire I'd probably call "hip-hop" attire, which is the current cultural movement adopted by the youth of today of all races.  I'd say that kids today dress that way because they listen to hip-hop and want to be associated with that scene, just like the metalheads of yesteryear dressed in denim, leather and spikes because they wanted to be identified as a metalhead, not a Hell's Angel or something.  Hasn't this been going on for like, ever?  Wasn't the greaser style that teens were into in the 50's or whatever originally associated with some sort of criminal element?  Hip-hop culture is just the current youth movement to be deemed a threat to decent society by good old-fashioned Americans (aka old people).  To me anyone who looks at a kid dressed in hip-hop gear and thinks "OMG gangbanger thug (p.s. I hate the word "thug," can we like have a funeral for that word?  fucking a) is as out of touch as Tipper Gore was during the '80s.  I'd look at a kid dressed that way and think "kid."  I guess perception of stuff like this depends greatly on our own point of view, like 'ol Obi-Wan said.

[ehra]

Maybe yes, and maybe no.  Again, I don't think you can simply write off an opinion that it is suspicious.  In some contexts, it is.  In others, it isn't.  But given your "gang uniform" comment, I don't think you have the background to appreciate the differences in some contexts.  Don't take that as a slam--it's not meant to be.  But I don't think you understand the example I was giving.

You were talking about gangs that, for example, all wear red, so if you were to wear red in that area then people would think you could be a member of that gang. I live in a city that's got moderate gang related crime / activity. We weren't allowed to wear plain white T-shirts in high school for gang reasons. I understand what you're talking about. There's still a huge difference between wearing a specific type of clothes that could identify you as a local gang member and something as generic as loose pants and a "hoodie."

But it's not that simple.  There are plenty of gang neighborhoods where there isn't a specific "uniform" or article of clothing--which is especially true in areas where police crack down on gangs, so the gang's become much more loose in what constitutes a gang identifier.  Rather than the plain white t-shirt example you gave, it could be as simple as having white anywhere on your clothing, period.  You could be dressed in jeans and a black t-shirt, but if you've got white shoes, you could be flagged.  You could be wearing blue sweats with a white stripe and be flagged. 

The point is simply that you can wear something that would be completely innocuous in many contexts, that can end up intentionally or unintentionally creating a negative label in other contexts.

You're still talking about wearing a specific color in an area where a gang has decided they're going to use any amount of that color as their identifier. Yes, it's reasonable to be suspicious of that color in that specific case, just like it'd be reasonable to be suspicious of anyone wearing a suit if there were a nice suit gang in your area. As far as I could tell eric wasn't talking about that kind of specific case. I doubt that there's a "loose pants and random hoodie" gang in his area (or in the area that Trayvon was shot, for that matter), although I suppose it's possible I'm wrong.

[Scheavo]

If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?

[eric42434224]

If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?

Yes.  When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there.  Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane.  Have a good day!:

Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.

So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion

[Ryzee]

If you suspect someone of something, is there anything they can do that won't be suspicious?

Yes.  When asked what they are doing here, they respond, "Oh, Hi there.  Yeah, Im Eric Smith, I live 2 streets over on Holly Lane.  Have a good day!:
Saying, "You got a problem?", or running will cause more suspicion.

So to answer your question, there are certainly things that can be done that wont be suspicious, and there are mnay things that can be done to STOP the suspicion

Sure, when the person asking you what you're doing there is a cop.  What business is it of some other random guy on the street what you are doing, or where you live?