Defining the term 'Thug'.

[Loren Pechtel]

Trayvon Martin does not fit definition #1. Even if we take everything you posted at face value, all we see is a kid who skipped school, denied being a hoodlum, and called himself 'gangsta'. The allegation he had burglary tools and jewelry was never substantiated and the newspaper that carried it pulled the story. But let's act like it was a substantiated claim and that Trayvon had a screwdriver and jewelry of unknown provenance in his backpack.

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy. That, coupled with his apparent criminal record is what is getting him labeled a thug.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Punching a white supremacist agitator and chasing him away from a BLM protest is "thuggish" behavior in lack of any other evidence, even lacking a pattern of violence. This falls under Arctish's definition #2.

OTOH, attending a BLM protest with loaded weapons, masks, and an avowedly confrontational demeanor is "self defense" when the perpetrators are white. So that, too, falls under definition #2 in that case: "thuggish behavior" requires evidence of a pattern of that behavior if the perpetrators are white. It requires no such pattern when the perpetrators are black, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.

Violence on the part of the whites prior to the shooting: None

Violence on the part of the blacks prior to the shooting: Punching, mob chasing.

It's like you don't care about the violence done by blacks. Do you consider thuggish behavior normal?

 

[RavenSky]

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!!

NO - you do NOT get to use the self-serving uncredible word of killer with the FACTUALLY long history of "thuggish behavior" as part of your claim that Trayvon was a "thug"

FUCK that bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's worth noting that the shooter at the BLM rally was recently sentenced to 15 years of jail time for his actions. Turns out that, unlike in Florida, "I had to defend myself after I set out to start a fight." doesn't fly in Minnesota.

Which says nothing about whether he was legitimately defending himself.

You must have clean hands to act in self defense, legitimate self defense with unclean hands is treated as murder.

 

[Mumbles]

Trayvon Martin does not fit definition #1. Even if we take everything you posted at face value, all we see is a kid who skipped school, denied being a hoodlum, and called himself 'gangsta'. The allegation he had burglary tools and jewelry was never substantiated and the newspaper that carried it pulled the story. But let's act like it was a substantiated claim and that Trayvon had a screwdriver and jewelry of unknown provenance in his backpack.

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy. That, coupled with his apparent criminal record is what is getting him labeled a thug.

Except he had no known criminal record, and the only evidence that he "jumped" Zimmerman is contained in Zimmerman's absurd story where Martin continually ran back and forth, circled his car, and attacked him with four arms while spewing blaxploitation lines. Jeantel's testimony, which matched Zimmermnan's police recording far better than Zimmerman's asinine story, noted that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and eventually attacked him.

 

[laughing dog]

Punching a white supremacist agitator and chasing him away from a BLM protest is "thuggish" behavior in lack of any other evidence, even lacking a pattern of violence. This falls under Arctish's definition #2.

OTOH, attending a BLM protest with loaded weapons, masks, and an avowedly confrontational demeanor is "self defense" when the perpetrators are white. So that, too, falls under definition #2 in that case: "thuggish behavior" requires evidence of a pattern of that behavior if the perpetrators are white. It requires no such pattern when the perpetrators are black, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice.

Violence on the part of the whites prior to the shooting: None

Violence on the part of the blacks prior to the shooting: Punching, mob chasing.

The protesters were of different races. Why are you focusing of the behavior of "the blacks"?

It's like you don't care about the violence done by blacks. Do you consider thuggish behavior normal?

According to you, thug is a lifestyle. Except when that definition does not fit protesters, etc.... who happen to be black.

 

[LordKiran]

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!!!

NO - you do NOT get to use the self-serving uncredible word of killer with the FACTUALLY long history of "thuggish behavior" as part of your claim that Trayvon was a "thug"

FUCK that bullshit.

But Zimmer was white, so he can't have been a thug. Why do you keep giving them the benefit of the doubt that (As far as this board is concerned) "Thug" is just code for "Black?"

 

[Arctish]

Trayvon Martin does not fit definition #1. Even if we take everything you posted at face value, all we see is a kid who skipped school, denied being a hoodlum, and called himself 'gangsta'. The allegation he had burglary tools and jewelry was never substantiated and the newspaper that carried it pulled the story. But let's act like it was a substantiated claim and that Trayvon had a screwdriver and jewelry of unknown provenance in his backpack.

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy. That, coupled with his apparent criminal record is what is getting him labeled a thug.

What you are missing - apparently deliberately - is all the evidence Martin did not react to being followed by jumping the guy. The evidence, including but not limited to Zimmerman's recorded statements, Jeantel's testimony, the ear-witness testimony of neighbors, and the physical evidence, indicate that Martin reacted to being followed by running away, and when the creepy stranger found him by running away again until the stranger caught him and he couldn't run away anymore.

What you are also missing - again, apparently deliberately - is that Martin did not have a criminal record. So far as we know, he never spoke directly to a cop in his entire life. Zimmerman was the guy with the criminal record. Zimmerman is the one who was convicted (twice!) for crimes of violence. Zimmerman is the one with the pattern of violence both before the night he killed Martin and after.

Zimmerman fits the definition of thug if you're using definition #1. Martin only fits the definition if you're using definition #2. Are you?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And those armed bigots looking for a fight and antagonizing the crowd did not look "thuggish". Gee, I wonder what was the distinguishing characteristic of the people in the crowd that made them "thuggish" but not those armed, looking for a fight, men .

Then, of course, we have you saying Tamir Rice learned the thuggish lifestyle from his mother (an alleged drug dealer), even though you had no idea whether she was a violent or non-violent dealer.

You react to words with mob violence, you look like a thug.

You bring guns and tactical gear to a peaceful protest with the express intention of intimidating people, you're ACTING like a thug.

Trayvon Martin does not fit definition #1. Even if we take everything you posted at face value, all we see is a kid who skipped school, denied being a hoodlum, and called himself 'gangsta'. The allegation he had burglary tools and jewelry was never substantiated and the newspaper that carried it pulled the story. But let's act like it was a substantiated claim and that Trayvon had a screwdriver and jewelry of unknown provenance in his backpack.

What you are missing is that it appears that he reacted to being followed by jumping the guy. That, coupled with his apparent criminal record is what is getting him labeled a thug.

See, that contradicts the first definition: he doesn't have a history of violent behavior, he has ACCUSATIONS of a history of PRETENDING to have a criminal record.

George Zimmerman, on the other hand, DOES have a criminal record which literally does include a history of violent and confrontational behavior. If anything, Zimmerman fits the definition far better than Trayvon Martin does, and even his pursuit of Trayvon can accurately be described as "thug" behavior.

It's like you don't care about the violence done by blacks. Do you consider thuggish behavior normal?

Of course not. And apparently, neither did the Minnesota jury that sent these three idiots to jail, nor the prosecutor who pressed charges on them but NOT on the protesters they fired on.

You go to a rally to cause trouble, you hurt people when trouble starts, then you fit the definition of a violent thug and you have no defense for your actions. That's why YOUR defense did not bear close scrutiny in the court room and was soundly rejected.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

nevermind

 

[Malintent]

a Thug is a low-level street criminal that uses physical cohesion to intimidate. Unfortunately, extremists will take any word used to describe a negative attribute of a person and label it racist if that person is black.

 

[laughing dog]

Thug is a low-level street criminal that uses physical cohesion to intimidate. Unfortunately, extremists will take any word used to describe a negative attribute of a person and label it racist if that person is black.

And some people will consciously or unconsciously describe black people as thugs while refusing to use that term for white people who act in the same manner. And other people will use the misuse of extremists to excuse the racist usage of others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thug is a low-level street criminal that uses physical cohesion to intimidate. Unfortunately, extremists will take any word used to describe a negative attribute of a person and label it racist if that person is black.

And some people will consciously or unconsciously describe black people as thugs while refusing to use that term for white people who act in the same manner. And other people will use the misuse of extremists to excuse the racist usage of others.

Your side continues to claim this yet doesn't produce valid examples.

 

[laughing dog]

Your side continues to claim this yet doesn't produce valid examples.

And your side continues to deny reality. I wonder that is.

 

[Arctish]

And some people will consciously or unconsciously describe black people as thugs while refusing to use that term for white people who act in the same manner. And other people will use the misuse of extremists to excuse the racist usage of others.

Your side continues to claim this yet doesn't produce valid examples.

What is invalid about the example of how the term 'thug' is used WRT to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

 

[Mumbles]

And some people will consciously or unconsciously describe black people as thugs while refusing to use that term for white people who act in the same manner. And other people will use the misuse of extremists to excuse the racist usage of others.

Your side continues to claim this yet doesn't produce valid examples.

Yet again, this guy was called a "thug" when he was invited to the White House:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbRrNHJ4Lg[/YOUTUBE]

Does a dude proposing marriage to a deaf woman using cue cards say "violent criminal" to you?

Or Richard Sherman yelling after scoring a major victory. Sound like someone who's about to pull out a gun and shoot someone?

Seems to me that you're simply ignoring valid examples.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your side continues to claim this yet doesn't produce valid examples.

What is invalid about the example of how the term 'thug' is used WRT to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Where's the pattern of violence in response to minor issues?

 

[Arctish]

What is invalid about the example of how the term 'thug' is used WRT to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Where's the pattern of violence in response to minor issues?

In Martin's case, nowhere. There's no evidence he was a violent person even after years of thorough examination of his history and character. That's why he doesn't fit definition #1. He only fits the definition of 'thug' if you're using definition #2.

In Zimmerman's case there's a well known pattern of violent responses to minor issues like his friend being questioned on suspicion he was having drinks in a bar despite being underage, an argument with his wife Shelly, an argument with a girlfriend, an argument with a different girlfriend, a woman bothering him at work, and the minor issue of words exchanged with a patron at a bar/restaurant. And then there's his gun-grabbing, armed pursuit response to the minor issue of seeing a teenager he didn't recognize walking down a sidewalk in his neighborhood.

Zimmerman's pattern of violence is well documented. He fits the definition of 'thug' if you're using definition #1. But if you're using definition #2, then his whiteness makes him exempt from that category.

Are you using definition #2?


ETA: We didn't include anything about a pattern of violence in our definition, mostly because no one but me suggested including it, and Derec was in a hurry to get to examples. But remember when I said "don't be surprised if someone tries to use that bit of ambiguity as an 'out' if one of their sacred cows is about to get gored"?

You're doing it, and I'm not surprised.

 

[laughing dog]

What is invalid about the example of how the term 'thug' is used WRT to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

Where's the pattern of violence in response to minor issues?

Why does there need to a pattern of violence when you have explicitly stated that one incident will do the trick in the absence of a pattern?

 

[LordKiran]

Where's the pattern of violence in response to minor issues?

Why does there need to a pattern of violence when you have explicitly stated that one incident will do the trick in the absence of a pattern?

Also why does said violence need to be "in response to A minor issue?"