I think that part of the issue with the Trevon case is society standards.

Whether Zimmerman was justified or not is another matter, but Trevon was dressed in attire that I would consider to be suspicious. Compile that with the Facebook photo's that have been surfacing, and I wouldn't give this kid the time of day.

I used to work with a guy that had, maybe an overzealous attitude towards society standards and breaking certain laws-he loved to go on posted land (especially Gov't posted), and take pictures. He claimed he never did any harm, just took pictures and walked out. He was and still is a "Free-stater".
His most often used comeback to anything I said to him was: "What, you think I should listen to the Government, just because society tells me to?"

What about Duchess's statement in the Walking while black thread:

"Yup, it's there. I've never removed my sunglasses, taken my hat off or pushed my hoodie back. The day they personally request that to me will be the day I remove every last dime from that fuckin' bank and they won't be too damn happy when I ask my man to do the same. You might be willing to tolerate that but I'm not. NO ONE tells me what I can wear. They'll never say that to my face, CG because I'm pretty & I'm white, they wouldn't dare".

Yet, I'm sure there is a certain "attire" that you have to wear for work-I mean, if you went up to the closest hobo and traded clothes with him, and then trotted off to work, your boss would send you home in a heartbeat.

To a point, I think most of us conform to society standards-supposedly for the greater good.

Society Standards are also used in profiling, which is why Trevon was targeted that night. Now everyone is wearing a hoodie-which makes it much easier on crooks, they get to walk in to a store and not be told to take their hood down and show there face.

Or the shopkeeper be considered politically incorrect, and the kid in the hoodie will start screaming 'justice for Trevon!

If there is a set precedence or "Bank sign" that says you have to conform or adhere to certain rules, do you?

What about laws? Is a law a law, no matter what? Most laws were originally made due to standards, ideas the people thought were good and just, at the time. If you can break the law by smoking pot (no harm, no foul), should someone just be allow to trespass on anothers' land?

Simply reading the word "conforming" is enough to make me dig in my heels.

I'm a reasonable person & except for my pot smoking habit I follow the laws of the land. I have enough sense to dress in an appropriate manner for whatever the occasion calls for.

The reality is, some people get away with things that others don't, it's just the way it is, of course it's not fair but life isn't fair.

I profile people all the time. I don't like to use the word "judge" but I suppose it's exactly what I do, I will judge you on how you present yourself. So many people don't even hit my radar except for the split second when I visually take them in. If you don't hit my high standards then you are nobody to me and are easily forgotten. I look at how you're dressed, how you talk and how you carry yourself...and I judge you.

Are you upset with me because I said I'm a pretty white girl? I wasn't on my high horse when I said that. It's just a fact of life. I know I'm treated differently sometimes than someone who is homely & uneducated. I don't say that to be hoity toity or full of myself, although I am, somewhat.

I am not bothered about societys standards just the standards I set for myself.

Most Societial standards conform to mine or I wouldn't follow them.

(03-30-2012, 08:53 AM)Duchess Wrote: Are you upset with me because I said I'm a pretty white girl? I wasn't on my high horse when I said that. It's just a fact of life. I know I'm treated differently sometimes than someone who is homely & uneducated. I don't say that to be hoity toity or full of myself, although I am, somewhat. [/i][/size]

Hell no-why the fuck would I be mad. If I was a pretty white girl-I'd be braggin, too.

Maybe I shouldn't have started a new thread about it, but I wanted others input on standards as a whole-

When you're in a position that causes you to take note of the people around you-you do see all walks of life, but what causes the notion that a particular person may be more dangerous over another?

(03-30-2012, 10:33 AM)cannongal Wrote: Maybe I shouldn't have started a new thread about it, but I wanted others input on standards as a whole-

I think it's a great topic. There are a variety of opinions on this & I like reading what others have to say.

(03-30-2012, 07:24 AM)cannongal Wrote: I think that part of the issue with the Trevon case is society standards.

Whether Zimmerman was justified or not is another matter, but Trevon was dressed in attire that I would consider to be suspicious. Compile that with the Facebook photo's that have been surfacing, and I wouldn't give this kid the time of day.

A guy following me in his car would scare me more than a kid walking down the street in a hoodie. I see kids in hoodies and crazy attire all the time, I never gave it any thought. I wear them myself sometimes and like to flip birds in my pictures too, so I guess I don't conform either.

(03-30-2012, 10:50 AM)sally Wrote: A guy following me in his car would scare me more than a kid walking down the street in a hoodie. I see kids in hoodies and crazy attire all the time, I never gave it any thought. I wear them myself sometimes and like to flip birds in my pictures too, so I guess I don't conform either.

That's exactly how I feel about it too. I've never felt fearful seeing anyone in a hoodie regardless of what color they are. It's common attire these days & I do it all the time, I also flip the bird in photographs but that's only because I don't want my picture taken.

OK, one thing I read about the FB profile picture of Treyvon flipping the bird...New sorces say that the picture is of a Trayvon Martin, bit not THIS victim.

I make snap judgments about the way people are dressed but I know when I'm making them that they're just supposition. If I'm walking my dog at night and some big burly gangsta type guy is walking towards me (not that that happens very much), I would probably cross the street. I don't know that they're up to no good but I take the better-safe-than sorry approach.

I don't want to rehash the Trayvon case necessarily but I see a big difference in exercising a little caution and truly believing that clothes or appearance are enough to ascertain someone's moral character or some criminal intent.

(03-30-2012, 07:24 AM)cannongal Wrote: I think that part of the issue with the Trevon case is society standards.

I'd at least like to know the correct spelling of his name. I've seen Trevon, Trayvon and Travon.


Anybody?

(03-31-2012, 01:16 AM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

Thank you.

(03-31-2012, 01:16 AM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote:

nice one Zero, you are our resident artist.

I watched Piers this morning, they were discussing this case. There was this guy on there taking on Piers and fighting with him for his 'softly softly' approach. Piers took exception and nearly lost his temper.

I notice they have cut his hour long show down to 30 minutes, or 10 minutes if you include all the commercial breaks they have on CNN.

(03-31-2012, 02:12 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: I notice they have cut his hour long show down to 30 minutes

No shit? That's great news! He's the worst interviewer ever.

(03-31-2012, 06:03 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(03-31-2012, 02:12 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: I notice they have cut his hour long show down to 30 minutes

No shit? That's great news! He's the worst interviewer ever.

He doesn't like Madonna, so he is not on my snarl list.

(03-31-2012, 02:12 AM)aussiefriend Wrote: I watched Piers this morning, they were discussing this case. There was this guy on there taking on Piers and fighting with him for his 'softly softly' approach. Piers took exception and nearly lost his temper.

I notice they have cut his hour long show down to 30 minutes, or 10 minutes if you include all the commercial breaks they have on CNN.

As a Brit I would like to make a collective apology on behalf of the whole of the UK for Piers Morgan.

That is all.

(03-31-2012, 07:44 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: As a Brit I would like to make a collective apology on behalf of the whole of the UK for Piers Morgan.

Apology accepted! I'm not familiar with other things he has done but he is a very poor choice to replace Larry King.