Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

Off Topic
601

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
The most racist aspect of this thread is assuming the shooter is a racist because the kid he shot was black. If that isn’t stereotyping by skin color I don’t know what is.[/quote]

But it’s perfectly acceptable to assume that the kid must have been up to no good for Zimmerman to follow him right?
[/quote]
Given the response by the police, the crime in the area, the objective description of the perps of said crimes, witness reports and the fact Zimmerman felt the need to call 911, yes.

It is not acceptable to assume the kid must’ve been up to no good simply because of his race.

Apples and oranges.

602

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

War[/quote]
Europe was constantly at war.[/quote]

The printing press which led to widespread literacy had a huge impact. Look at the Islamic and Christian cultures pre-printing press and post.

603

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

War[/quote]
Europe was constantly at war.[/quote]

The printing press which led to widespread literacy had a huge impact. Look at the Islamic and Christian cultures pre-printing press and post.
[/quote]
Right, technological advances. Consider them and re-read the post.

604

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

War[/quote]
Europe was constantly at war.[/quote]

I’m sorry that was not just the answer to the last part. It is Why one group advanced also.
The vast majority of Human advancement came thru WAR.

One Group wanting dominance over the other.

Its no secret that Many of the Eruopean Countries not near the middle east where about as stone aged as you can get while some afican countries had Cites and Libraries. War and the gathering of smaller areas to bring about Cities came thru WAR. It also made trade possible, spreading knowledge.

The earth shifting etc, etc. Its not just One group always had the upper hand thing.

605

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

War[/quote]
Europe was constantly at war.[/quote]

I’m sorry that was not just the answer to the last part. It is Why one group advanced also.
The vast majority of Human advancement came thru WAR.

One Group wanting dominance over the other.

Its no secret that Many of the Eruopean Countries not near the middle east where about as stone aged as you can get while some afican countries had Cites and Libraries. War and the gathering of smaller areas to bring about Cities came thru WAR. It also made trade possible, spreading knowledge.

The earth shifting etc, etc. Its not just One group always had the upper hand thing.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned the dominance of one culture over another.

Some african countries certainly were advanced though Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria et cetera were predominately populated by middle eastern Eurasians, not traditional africans.

606

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Right, technological advances. Consider them and re-read the post.[/quote]

Yes and every now and then one individual has a much better idea which pulls a civilization out of squalor such as the printing press did for Europeans. Prior to that Islamic culture was far ahead of Europe. It has nothing to do with race but ideas.

607

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Right, technological advances. Consider them and re-read the post.[/quote]

Yes and every now and then one individual has a much better idea which pulls a civilization out of squalor such as the printing press did for Europeans. Prior to that Islamic culture was far ahead of Europe. It has nothing to do with race but ideas. [/quote]

It was a little more than Ideas. China had some great ones Including movable type YEARS before the Europeans. But what good is an idea if its closed off from the world. War changed that. It opened up boarders, trade routes and the expansion of ideas.

But many, many people had to DIE for this to happen. It could also have happen thru Conversation, negotiation and compromise (hahahahahahaha). But we are humans and we can’t have to much of that now can we.

608

I have had to do this before and it looks like I have to do it again. Let me explain race. And for those who doubt my credentials for this discussion, they are founded in studying racism at an advanced level, have justified my use of race or not using it at all in peer reviewed academic articles, and grew up in Texas within a multi-racial/ethnic family.

Race is a SOCIAL construct. There is NO BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR RACE. Race is based on selecting particular characteristics and designating those as the difference makers. If you do not believe me, ask Hitler.

Racism, making value judgment of individuals and groups based on stereotypes, is very real.

Racism and the ideas of race have shaped the US in ways that have become institutionalized in society, policy and very much present in the landscape. X’s argument that crime stats demonstrates socio-economic realities is right on point.

Looking at statistics along without understanding how they the information is gathered, separated, and used I allows for many stimulus results. Hell, most people cannot read a map let alone understand how those can be manipulated to create a representation of a particular reality let alone question stats. Arguments based solely on stats to explain human behavior are dubious at best.

And here is the kicker, racism in the US is not just black or white, but rather; black, white, Asian, middle eastern, Hispanic, and Native American, among others. Thanks to changes in the US census you cam legally be multi-racial/ethnic. Then add to the mix the distinctions this can make within communities but also the role of other’s perceptions of individuals that may make their ethnicity/race making their movement through actual and social space more or less problematic.

Do I need to go further?

609

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.

One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.

The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?

Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.

[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?

I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.

Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.

Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.

I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.

Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]

War[/quote]
Europe was constantly at war.[/quote]

I’m sorry that was not just the answer to the last part. It is Why one group advanced also.
The vast majority of Human advancement came thru WAR.

One Group wanting dominance over the other.

Its no secret that Many of the Eruopean Countries not near the middle east where about as stone aged as you can get while some afican countries had Cites and Libraries. War and the gathering of smaller areas to bring about Cities came thru WAR. It also made trade possible, spreading knowledge.

The earth shifting etc, etc. Its not just One group always had the upper hand thing.[/quote]
Yes, I mentioned the dominance of one culture over another.

Some african countries certainly were advanced though Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria et cetera were predominately populated by middle eastern Eurasians, not traditional africans.[/quote]

The above is also open to debate depending on the Time in history we are talking about. But Even Ethiopia was more advanced than the more Western european areas.

But like everything else things changed due to War, Famine and Trade.

610

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I have had to do this before and it looks like I have to do it again. Let me explain race. And for those who doubt my credentials for this discussion, they are founded in studying racism at an advanced level, have justified my use of race or not using it at all in peer reviewed academic articles, and grew up in Texas within a multi-racial/ethnic family.

Race is a SOCIAL construct. There is NO BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR RACE. Race is based on selecting particular characteristics and designating those as the difference makers. If you do not believe me, ask Hitler.

Racism, making value judgment of individuals and groups based on stereotypes, is very real.

Racism and the ideas of race have shaped the US in ways that have become institutionalized in society, policy and very much present in the landscape. X’s argument that crime stats demonstrates socio-economic realities is right on point.

Looking at statistics along without understanding how they the information is gathered, separated, and used I allows for many stimulus results. Hell, most people cannot read a map let alone understand how those can be manipulated to create a representation of a particular reality let alone question stats. Arguments based solely on stats to explain human behavior are dubious at best.

And here is the kicker, racism in the US is not just black or white, but rather; black, white, Asian, middle eastern, Hispanic, and Native American, among others. Thanks to changes in the US census you cam legally be multi-racial/ethnic. Then add to the mix the distinctions this can make within communities but also the role of other’s perceptions of individuals that may make their ethnicity/race making their movement through actual and social space more or less problematic.

Do I need to go further?[/quote]

Sounds about right to me.

611

I do still find it funny that this much generalization about the character of all black people can still occur…but if any black person notices it and comments on it, they are just seeing racism everywhere.

What a strange predicament to be both the center of attention as far as “potential for negative behavior” yet also degraded for claiming my color is the first thing seen and judged in society still.

Make up your minds. I am either an individual…or the actions of others represent my own potential for the same leading to profiling and executions.

612

[quote]optheta wrote:

First 2 recordings all you need to hear.
[/quote]
Well according to that article it looks like Zimmerman is going to walk.
I’m a bit confused. Have they figured out who was on top in the altercation? Did they figure out who was screaming for help? Were there actually break ins in the area? I was under the impression there hadn’t been any break ins.

In the article it quotes the lawyers as saying the kid was yelling for help, but I don’t think that’s enough to confirm it. Listening to those 911 tapes made me a bit sick. All the potential witnesses were too scared to help or look out their windows except for one guy. And he ended up too late because he was getting his gun.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been nice if the 911 operator had told him to stop following him more than once. It was obvious from the sounds the phone was making he was still running after him after the operator said “We don’t need you to do that.” Then Zimmerman at the end of the call, tells the operator to have the police call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is, implying he’s going to be moving and going after him.

613

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do still find it funny that this much generalization about the character of all black people can still occur…but if any black person notices it and comments on it, they are just seeing racism everywhere.

What a strange predicament to be both the center of attention as far as “potential for negative behavior” yet also degraded for claiming my color is the first thing seen and judged in society still.

Make up your minds. I am either an individual…or the actions of others represent my own potential for the same leading to profiling and executions.[/quote]
Both. The former so the foundation of the American Dream is unaffected and the latter because it is the easiest way to prevent it from happening.

614

Zimmerman may run into trouble with the fact that he went after Martin. CCW requires you NOT do that. He can claim self-defense all he wants, but then HE’S the one who went after Martin to begin with. Zimmerman was in ZERO danger… until he decided to confront Martin.

Also:
“A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.”

615

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:

First 2 recordings all you need to hear.
[/quote]
Well according to that article it looks like Zimmerman is going to walk.
I’m a bit confused. Have they figured out who was on top in the altercation? Did they figure out who was screaming for help? Were there actually break ins in the area? I was under the impression there hadn’t been any break ins.

In the article it quotes the lawyers as saying the kid was yelling for help, but I don’t think that’s enough to confirm it. Listening to those 911 tapes made me a bit sick. All the potential witnesses were too scared to help or look out their windows except for one guy. And he ended up too late because he was getting his gun.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it would have been nice if the 911 operator had told him to stop following him more than once. It was obvious from the sounds the phone was making he was still running after him after the operator said “We don’t need you to do that.” Then Zimmerman at the end of the call, tells the operator to have the police call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is, implying he’s going to be moving and going after him.[/quote]

I’ll bet on almost anything, but I can’t get myself to bet on this one. But I also think Zimmerman will walk.

“A KID WALKING BACK FROM THE STORE WITH SKITTLES AND ICE TEA”

616

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Zimmerman may run into trouble with the fact that he went after Martin. CCW requires you NOT do that. He can claim self-defense all he wants, but then HE’S the one who went after Martin to begin with. Zimmerman was in ZERO danger… until he decided to confront Martin.

Also:
“A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.”[/quote]

Now here is the Mustard in the mix.

Zimmerman and his defense (wisely) are playing down any and everything but the “confrontation”. See in a struggle all you need to say is that you “felt your life was on the line”. At that point pulling his gun can be seen as (don’t hate me on this) Justified.

With no witnesses this comes down to what happend after Zimmerman left his car and Confronted the kid. And only the shooter has a story the other side of the story died.

I am curious to see how the courts view him leaving his car and going after the kid after the kid walked to his SUV seen someone was following him and got scared and ran (this is from the 911 tapes and Zimmermans own words by the way). This may get thrown out I don’t know.

617

613×850 78.6 KB

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
More gnats.

Blacks in America may just have the most diverse gene pool of any other country. That makes the entire discussion of “black genes” suspect and I have stated this many times before.

I am not African. My ancestors were French, Native American, Haitian, and African. If you see “black” when you see me and then base any judgments about my character or potential for any negative act on that color, you are a RACIST.

Accept it.

Deal with it.[/quote]

Its hard but the whole stat game is just that. A game. Its way the majority of them if not all of them are debated to death.

Most of these type of statistics are based off of police reports when crime is concerned. And as you can see thru this one MAY go down as Zimmerman self defense shooting.

Making this kid with Ice Tea and skittles the aggressor. So this is another STAT to add to the list.

Zimmerman who may be of Latin American decent. Is considered by the Police as a White Male of Hispanic descent. Since no state or Gov agency considers Hispanic or Latin American a race.

But when you look at a pic of Zimmerman what do you see?

Its all open to debate and even the Tiger kid who broke out the Stats to start this conversation can agree to that.[/quote]
Again, semantics can be fun. It’s weird gov’t agencies don’t recognize latino as a race independent of the caucasion race, though I’m sure some biological classification methodology is the reason why.

Stand a bunch of whites next to a bunch of latinos and you’ll see different facial features, bone structure, hair and eye color variations et cetera. With out labeling each person as “caucasion” and “caucasion of latino decent”, the average joe could pick the latinos like 99% of the time. We are definitely different, neither better than the other but different for sure.[/quote]

LOL

Most of the country was completely in the dark that this woman was at least half Hispanic.

Gnats, gnats everywhere gnats

618

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Zimmerman may run into trouble with the fact that he went after Martin. CCW requires you NOT do that. He can claim self-defense all he wants, but then HE’S the one who went after Martin to begin with. Zimmerman was in ZERO danger… until he decided to confront Martin.

Also:
“A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.”[/quote]
I agree. I think he should get manslaughter too. There is no way to prove murder. Judging by the 911 call Zimmerman spooked the kid and he took off running. Zimmerman chased after him which would have freaked him out more. Zimmerman was told not to chase after him, acknowledged the operator and then did it afterwards. He should be at fault imo.

619

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Zimmerman may run into trouble with the fact that he went after Martin. CCW requires you NOT do that. He can claim self-defense all he wants, but then HE’S the one who went after Martin to begin with. Zimmerman was in ZERO danger… until he decided to confront Martin.

Also:
“A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.”[/quote]
I agree. I think he should get manslaughter too. There is no way to prove murder. Judging by the 911 call Zimmerman spooked the kid and he took off running. Zimmerman chased after him which would have freaked him out more. Zimmerman was told not to chase after him, acknowledged the operator and then did it afterwards. He should be at fault imo.[/quote]

Zimmerman should be cleared of any charges made against him. Statistics prove beyond doubt that there was a 100.666788% probability that Tray was black at the time of his death, and being black, there was an equal probability that he had murder in his heart that night.

Responsibility lies with the black murderers who very helpfully filled out detailed questionnaires about their criminal tendencies, shortly before robbing the interviewers. It was only a matter of time before Tray became another victim of black on black homicide, so why delay the inevitable?

620

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Grimlorn wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Zimmerman may run into trouble with the fact that he went after Martin. CCW requires you NOT do that. He can claim self-defense all he wants, but then HE’S the one who went after Martin to begin with. Zimmerman was in ZERO danger… until he decided to confront Martin.

Also:
“A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.”[/quote]
I agree. I think he should get manslaughter too. There is no way to prove murder. Judging by the 911 call Zimmerman spooked the kid and he took off running. Zimmerman chased after him which would have freaked him out more. Zimmerman was told not to chase after him, acknowledged the operator and then did it afterwards. He should be at fault imo.[/quote]

Zimmerman should be cleared of any charges made against him. Statistics prove beyond doubt that there was a 100.666788% probability that Tray was black at the time of his death, and being black, there was an equal probability that he had murder in his heart that night.

Responsibility lies with the black murderers who very helpfully filled out detailed questionnaires about their criminal tendencies, shortly before robbing the interviewers. It was only a matter of time before Tray became another victim of black on black homicide, so why delay the inevitable? [/quote]

Exactly. And don’t forget the deadly Skittles/Ice Tea Combo clause.