Zimmerman family member sends letter to AG Eric Holder.

Questions for debate:

1) Should the NBP leadership be arrested?

2) By what level of gov't?

3) On what charges?

4) If not, why not?

5) Should the AG or President or Congressional Black Caucus or other black leadership come out and condemn the NBP? Do you think they will?

I love your question 5.

Because every black person in America is responsible for answering for what every other black person in America does.

1) Should the NBP leadership be arrested?

An investigation should at least be undertaken to determine whether or not the BNP is responsible for a hate crime and if the threats are genuinely so then yes, of course.


5) Should the AG or President or Congressional Black Caucus or other black leadership come out and condemn the NBP? Do you think they will?

If a hate crime has been comitted then yes.
No they probably won't.




Do those people constitute 'every black person in America'?

If you read the article you can see there is a context to this question;

moif, do you think there is moral equivalence with standing up to call for justice for somebody and standing up to point fingers at someone who did something bad (yet without a victim) simply because they share a race?

Do you also recognize that a lot of leaders of many races have stood up to call for justice for Trayvon Martin and your collecting up strictly those who are black is a completely arbitrary distinction?

Is there no victim? A family are claiming to have been pushed into hiding.

I think the answer to your question lies with the individuals, and the context of their motives. If a person stands up for another person, simply on the basis of their race, then I think that is problematic. If they stand up for some one on the basis of their fate (as in, getting killed like Trayvon Martin), then I do not think there is moral equivalence as you ask. However, If I were any person of authority who had publically spoken on the subject of Trayvon Martin, I would automaticall distance myself from any group that posted a bounty, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, gender or ideology.

I answered within the context of the question. I believe any one who has criticized the authorities in the Trayvon Martin case, should also distance themselves from the NBP, with regards to posting a bounty.

Sometimes the truth comes from drunks or criminals. We don't always like the people we agree with, but if they speak our minds, then we are obliged to agree with them.

With regards to this case, the people in question, are as you say, mostly African American, but the issue that has been raised in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin's death, is a racial issue and these people have all spoken out. They are not under any obligation to offer any further opinion on the matter, but their statements would be fair and balanced if their criticism was seen to extend beyond racial solidarity.

The same would be true if we were debating any other ethnic or ideological group. Introspection must be a paramount virtue in all criticism. If you won't question your own position, then how do you have the right to question others?

Really? So any defenders of Zimmerman would publicly distance themselves from the vandals of OSU's African American cultural center, the idiot neo Nazi promising to patrol the city, or does this just apply to some stupid fringe group that happens to be black?



I see no need to answer for some group of wackos with whom one has no connection. It's a massive distraction from anything of actual importance.

I don't know what 'defenders of George Zimmerman' would do. How am I supposed to know that?

I know what defenders of the law should do.


But your not a leader figure either. No one outside of these debates cares whether we distance ourselves from those with whom we happen to agree, or not.

Also, no one has suggested we 'answer' on behalf of groups we have no connection to. What is suggested, is that those African American leaders who have spoken out against the police should also speak out against the NBP. The point of this would be to avoid creating a counter productive racial dichotomy and to strengthen the rule of law.

It could be said that a racial division already exists. If that is the case, then perhaps there is no point for African American leaders to speak out against anything since nothing will make any difference. It depends on what you all hope to gain in the long run.

The Pseudo Black Panther Party has become today's cause celebre of the Right as part of their never-ending need to find new boogeymen to frighten their followers witless. One day it's the Reds, then it's the pinkos, the hippies, the radical Blacks, the uppity women, the won't stay in the closet gays and even subversive Teletubbies or Bert and Ernie.

Guess we're back to the Blacks again. The late journalist Carl T. Rowan observed, "A minority group has "arrived" only when it has the right to produce some fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it" but for the right-wing every Black person is culpable for the bad actors in the group.

It's a specious argument to make that Attorney General Holder or President Obama or the CBC or the head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs should be expected to "come out and condemn" the Pseudo Black Panthers. Why? Because they're all part of the "Black" club? By that twisted logic, everyone in Black leadership should be running to the mic to condemn Cousin Pookie who knocked over the liquor store and Ray-Ray 'cause he's a crackhead and everybody knows he broke in those old folks' home and stole their flat screen TV.

Why don't you ask "your Blacks" like Shufflin' Shelby Steele, Hankerchief Head Herman Cain, Jivin' Jesse Lee Peterson or Chicken Stealin' Clarence Thomas to come out and condemn the Pseudo Black Panthers, Bikerdad? They live for that sort of thing if it makes White Right-wingers feel better about themselves.

If the Pseudo Black Panthers didn't exist, the White Right would have had to create them. Nothing like guys walking around in the Florida heat in too much leather chanting and pumping a black gloved fist in the air to scare the crap outta White folks.

This thread has been quite inspirational. Let's take it to the next step. I'll start one just like it demanding White leaders like Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Ted Nugent and Tim Tebow speak out against the Neo-Nazis wandering around Sanford, Florida trying to start a race war.

Or maybe the Neo-Nazis armed and spoiling for a fight will turn the corner and run into the Pseudo Black Panthers armed and spoiling for a fight and everyone on both sides blows away the other and the rest of the country has a Merry Christmas.

But they do exist, and have offered a reward for 'bringing Zimmerman in'. Should an organization be able to do something like that with impunity? What if the Neo Nazi party publicly stated there was a monetary reward for someone. Should that be acceptable and legal?** The threat to Zimmerman and his family is real, as evidenced by the fact that Spike Lee could send out an (incorrect) address on twitter and send innocent people into hiding. He was very sorry, I'm sure he is and was, and I even feel a bit badly for him (even the victims sounded like they felt badly for him and there don't seem to be hard feelings from what I've read, likely because they were well compensated...). But at the end of the day I have to wonder what exactly he thought he'd accomplish if the address was the right one? Zimmerman is 28 with two children...as young as he is, they must be very young. And he was essentially siccing a mob on them.

**Edited to add- In a similar vein, if I remember correctly an anti-abortion group encountered crushing punitive fines for their doctor 'hit list' years ago, and rightly so IMO.

1) Should the NBP leadership be arrested?

Maybe. Threatening to commit a felony is a crime in Florida. So is solicitation to commit a felony. The felony, of course, is kidnapping.

Florida Section 0777



So by this law, what the NBP guy did was kidnapping.

2) By what level of gov't?

The State of Florida.

3) On what charges?

Kidnapping.

5) Should the AG or President or Congressional Black Caucus or other black leadership come out and condemn the NBP? Do you think they will?

No. Although the AG and President are responsible for law enforcement, this activity doesn't break federal law and they shouldn't be involved. Congress should definitely not be involved.

Solicitation is not the crime itself, Amlord. But thanks for being the only person to actually cite a law.

Yes, you are right. Solicitation to commit kidnapping would be the crime.

Did the Zimmerman family file a complaint with the police about any threats made by this new Black Panther party? Or have they been just complaining to the media?

5) Should the AG or President or Congressional Black Caucus or other black leadership come out and condemn the NBP? Do you think they will?

I am not clear on weather an arrest would stick but clearly anyone who threatens violence should get a lot of law enforcement attention regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are on.

any group whose leadership says things like this:




Should be roundly condemned by everyone......

Why?

It may be surprising, shocking and disturbing to some to learn there are Blacks who are as openly hostile and racist towards Whites as there are Whites whom are openly hostile and racist towards Whites. I'm not surprised, shocked or disturbed in the least. Hate speech is protected as free speech in America and whether it is coming from the Pseudo New Black Panthers, a neo-Nazi group, the Westboro Baptist Church or a Fox News commentator, it's still protected.

I'll condemn the hatred from the Pseudo New Black Panthers, but I fully expect you to do the same thing, Ted when the hatred is coming from right-wing racists such as former National Review columnist, John Derbyshire.



Quid pro quo, playa.

"Sorry I ruined your Black Panther Party."

~Forrest Gump

(sorry..... couldn't resist. Continue!)

all hate speech should be condemned.

and this is a perfect example of it

I don't know about that NT. I agree much of these points seem ridiculous but at least one not quite so much. I remember driving out to visit USC in '93 before ultimately deciding where I would attend graduate school. I took my younger brother with me at the time (I was about 27 and he was 17). If you're familiar with that area of LA you know that missing your turn off by just one exit can put you in another world. The exit I happened to take landed me right in the middle of a very poor neighborhood traveling down a long culdesac where the street became what appeared a guantlet of black men coming out into the street as we drove by. We were compelled to slow down to about 5 mph as many of the men partially (on purpose?) barred our passage in the middle of the street. Their activities immediately stopped and their attention became riveted on us. There was not a smile among them and I frankly became petrified to return any kind of look that could even remotely be deemed provoking. Did they mean ill-will against me? Who knows? They didn't lift a finger as we drove down to the end of the street only to return up the same street for what was a 2 minute eternity. I have wondered what could have happened had it been in the middle of the night...

The fact of the matter (IMO) is that when folks of any color are disadvantaged economically and although these same folks will frequently act aggressively against one another, many times any type of contrast will rally said group together against whomever happens to be different and the one contrast that seems to "get legs" more than any other variable is - race. It's the same kind of thing were I to suggest to you that you should probably avoid certain poorer areas in the south that are predominantly white. If I were a black man you're darn right I would be telling my children and wife to avoid certain areas for that reason alone. In much the same way, I would tell my white kids to avoid neighborhoods that are poorer and where there is a preponderance of one race different than my own. This is unfortunate but IMO true and sensible to consider. So yes, 10b from the list has a ring of truth to it. I would also add though "black neighborhoods on the lower end of the socioeconomic status".

Your comparison, however, is not a good one. The gentleman who wrote this list did not include a single point that would involve aggression of any kind against the black population. He is within his rights to believe and act on every one of those points he made. I say more power to him though he eliminates opportunities for himself to enrich his life by enjoying more associations with black folks. The NBP on the other hand advocates violence against whites and that is an entirely different matter which seems to have escaped you in your most recent post. In other words, I'll take being a black man any day driving down Mr. Derbyshire's street as opposed to being white and stumbling upon the neighborhood I did at the stroke of midnight.

Apples and oranges man...

More like hatred and hatred, man.

You're not likely to be a Black man driving down John Derbyshire's street anytime soon and I'd feel about as safe to be in his neighborhood as Trayvon Martin was in George Zimmerman's neighborhood and that's no safety at all.

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between The Pseudo New Black Panthers anti-White speech and Derbyshire's anti-Black speech. Both are entitled to hold those thoughts, but while Derbyshire's genteel, urban and sophisticated racism may go down easier to your tastes, they are just as harsh and bitter to mine. Actually, I consider Derbyshire a bigger threat because he operates under a veil of respectability as a former National Review columnist and that's a legitimacy never extended to the Pseudo Panthers cranks.

As far as putting deeds to words, I'm still waiting for the example of the Pseudo Panther actually backing up their reviled rhetoric with direct actions against a single White soul. It hasn't escaped me in the least, Vanguard. All I want is some proof these fanatics are the clear and present danger this board's resident conservatives fear they are.

Because like it or not, it's not a crime to hold anti-White attitudes any more than it is to have anti-Black attitudes. If it were there would be some members doing time.

Actually, 10a & 10d gave me a belly laugh. I took my mom to see Wynton Marsalis in LA many moons ago. Showing up at the venue (I believe it was on the UCLA campus) I was slack-jawed upon realizing we were virtually the only white folks in the auditorium. Black LA's finest were out in force to support Marsalis. The concert and the "human race relations" experience were unforgettable. To even suggest with a large brush stroke the avoidance of black crowds is simply dumb. I also don't care for Mr. Derbyshire's style - it feels like we're disucssing a group of something sub-human that is to be reviled. I hope he took great pains to clarify or qualify his coarse delivery.

And yes, there is much more than a dime's worth of difference between the rhetoric as I suggested in my previous post. In an effort to eliminate any distinction you appeal to a sense of morality - a morality that I happen to agree with. My point, however, is that the NBP verbally condones physically inflicting harm on another based on his race and this ventures squarely into criminal considerations that Mr. Derbyhshire's commentary does not. IMO, a fatal flaw in your argument is the insistance that a white man saying "Don't kick it with a bunch of blacks if you're the only white" and the NBP saying things akin to "hunt the white man down and we'll show our slave masters what real justice looks like" bears not even a passing glance for you apparently.

Cool beans. I won't be driving down that LA street ever again because I'm white, I'll jump at the chance to see Marsalis again even if I'm the token whitey , but I will NEVER advocate street justice against another racial group or my own and especially because of their race.

NT, your "not a dime's worth of difference" would make me a millionaire...

For the record, John Derbyshire was fired from National Review over this piece.

http://www.alestlelive.com/opinion/article...1a4bcf6878.html

Which to a lot of people, was "too little, too late" on the part of the National Review.

Forgive me if I hadn't read the preceding comments.

1) Should the NBP leadership be arrested?

Yes, without a doubt.

This kind of harrassment is a growing form of discrimination that I dubbed, "Reverse-Discrimination." Unoriginal, I know, but seriously, people. When someone makes a death threat on another person, I don't freakin' care if they're white, black, yellow, brown, or green little men. You arrest them and try them like everyone else.

That's fair treatment. Amen.

2) By what level of gov't?

Depends on how ranging it is. If it's only city wide, the city takes care of it. State-wide, state gov. Country wide, feds.

3) On what charges?

Death threats fall under coercion charges, I believe.

4) If not, why not?

Not answering this. They're getting arrested. Or they should.

5) Should the AG or President or Congressional Black Caucus or other black leadership come out and condemn the NBP? Do you think they will?

I hope so, but I can't really say. A lot of these guys run all over the place, siding with whoever makes them look good. But I don't think it should be hard. After all, I have no problem dissing the Westboro Baptist Church or Hate-Christians (those crazy 'Christians' who says God hates America that aren't Westboro), and I'm Christian who doesn't agree with homosexuality.