If Travon Had Been White…

Trayvon Per the Media

Trayvon Per the Media

A black neighborhood watch representative shot and killed and unarmed, 17 year old white boy who, the watchman claimed, was breaking into cars. He said he shot the kid in self-defense and was adjudged not guilty. It happened in 2009…

Few noticed.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Blacks, Criminal Justice, Culture, Equality, Hypocrisy, Law, Police, Politics, Race, Riots, Scandal and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to If Travon Had Been White…

  1. Rawclyde! says:

    Another blog by someone else presented the idea of ~ if he’d been a girl…
    http://thereporterandthegirl.com/2013/07/24/do-you-feel-any-different/
    a pretty good dialogue got cooking here…

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Thank you, that’s an interesting take on the case. I think it’s unfortunate whenever political leaders intrude into such affairs; it inevitably damages more people, seems to me.And the media manufactured the opportunity, pimping for the Politicians.

      • Rawclyde! says:

        I hope you don’t mind me adding, many Black folks & Democrats want to repeal the Stand Your Ground law now, while meanwhile so many Republican representatives in congress still want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. At least advocate improving the laws ~ not getting rid of them! It’s a lot of work & expense getting these precious laws in place for the betterment of life in America The Beautiful…

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Well, my simple mind can handle only only one thing at a time. Stand your ground, means, if you defend yourself reasonably, you won’t be prosecuted. Repeal that, and you have no right of self-defense. Either way, there are difficulties to deal with but for me, if the violent folk know I can’t legally defend myself, I fear we’re making them a happy hunting ground.

        Repealing Obamacare seems a change of subject to me. If it is in fact, unworkable or unaffordable, it should be repealed. Personally, I think the GOP has no intention of repealing it. The House votes are taken for posturing, in my opinion, knowing that the Senate won’t agree. Noting that the Republicans offer no alternatives, it suggests that neither side is serious about resolving the problems in the real world. Watching them this week shift the cost of their own coverage under Obamacare from themselves to us, reinforces that.

        Black folk who conflate the two situations, are buying a bill of goods from such as Jackson and Sharpton in lieu of doing their own thinking as I see it. But that is what public school grads are trained to do, right?

        You’re welcome to disagree and to say so; this is a dialogue, I’m not smart enough to Reveal the Undying Truth! I always hope though, that those who disagree, will state their reasons…that’s the only road to progress that I understand.

  2. Rawclyde! says:

    I back the Stand Your Ground law. I don’t own or carry a gun. But who knows about tomorrow? And I back the Affordable Care Act. As a homeless veteran, my treatment by the VA (a national government-affiliated hospital network) was vastly superior to the care a homeless non-veteran is able to obtain. Certain groups want to repeal both laws ~ thus I got a bit off topic…

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Stand your ground isn’t about guns, though some see it so. seems to me. Where that policy isn’t protected, self defense of any kind can be subject to prosecution where injury occur, if I understand it correctly. If the option exists, one must run away. There are naturally, pro and con on both policies; I see valid self-defense as less accommodating for the violent among us and preferable for that reason.

      Obamacare, from what I can see, will have to operate a while before anyone can evaluate it; it seems way too complex right now. There seems a reasonable chance that it will be too expensive. It has already become a problem to pay all the subsidies for low income beneficiaries. I’ll wait and see. But generally, I have low expectations of government services.but sometimes, we get lucky!

      • Rawclyde! says:

        It’s always a problem paying all the subsidies for low-income beneficiaries ~ when you don’t tax the rich ~ when they’re allowed to do all their banking in Jamaica ~ when they send all the jobs overseas so they can hog all the profits ~ when CEOs of medical insurance companies take home 44 million dollars a year…

        Yeeeeeeeap, it’s always a problem…

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Yeah, there’s always a problem, which to me, is usually the normal self-interest native to our species…in, or out of government and business… Since the rich have the money, taking it from them to subsidize the poor, removes the capital the economy needs from investors; that reduces (taxable) wealth production, so it’s a trade-off, You may subsidize the poor, which produces no wealth, or you may subsidize the economy, which does produce wealth. It’s always a political decision, that’s whi (in my opinion) it’s so often poorly made from the economic standpoint.

        Seems to me, no jobs are ever sent overseas. That’s an economic impossibility. What happens, is that when domestic production becomes uncompetitive, capital is invested overseas where production costs allow successful competition. This would not occur if domestic competition were possible because the operation of distant facilities under foriegn rules using different languages is an undesirable difficulty. That is a double whammy; it deprives Americans of employment and it deprives domestic producers of sales and government, of taxes.

        The profits of American industry are either reinvested in updating the business or distributed to the shareholders. The taxes on those profits are added to the sale price of the goods and paid by consumers when they buy them.

        The compensation of top management in U.S. industry has become ridiculous, along with that of actors, athletes and many government employees (the latter, only as compared to the private sector equivalent work.) This is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It seems part of what is returning the country from a three class to a two class society, and is likely a reflection of government influence replacing that of shareholders in industry and of monopoly conditions in entertainment and sports, imposed by government/union partnership. That’s my guess, of course, not necessarily the best explanation.

  3. katie says:

    Doesn’t matter if he’s green….wasn’t breaking the law….rent a cop gangstalk.er got his goofy self beat up gangstalking and murdered a kid

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s