George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Using the wayback machine we find in Jan 13 2012 (a month before the shooting)

http://web.archive.org/web/20120115...et/police/citizen_info/neighborhood_watch.htm

Then June 2012 (after the incident)

http://web.archive.org/web/20120610...et/police/citizen_info/neighborhood_watch.htm

So we see a change in the website wording sometime after the incident. city of orlando CYA.

There is no obligation to join an organized watch group/crime watch group. And a group of neighbors can (and do) get together and decide to watch over a neighborhood. And they do get to refer to themselves as a neighborhood watch when in conversation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could be that was in the initial training and they posted a reminder. If "don't approach" was in the original training, Zimmerman was in the wrong to approach, or at least as a Watch member. I do agree with milkweed in that they were an actual "Watch", whether NSA thought so or no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The justice system worked perfectly.
Can we prove that Zimmerman was lying? No.
Did he know Trayvon didn't have a gun? No.
Did he know Trayvon wasn't going to kill him? No.
Therefore, the jury ruled correctly.

 

boo hop I called you on making shit up. Do you have any evidence to support your beliefs or are you just basing it on wishes and unproven axioms like most of your arguments. I agree it is pointless to argue with you but if I'd just stick to the facts you wouldn't have these problems.

 

I have no idea if it was in the training. However, here is an interview with the supposed person that gave the training and a link to the PDF from the presentation itself.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/26/see-neighorhood-watch-presentation-give-zimmerman

I downloaded the pdf and there is no author, date created (other than when the website posted it); no info in the properties section. And there is nothing in the presentation to indicate 'dont approach' was emphasized, let alone mentioned. One would think there would be a personal safety section for neighborhood watches. But that does not appear to be the case.

Additionally, it would hold no legal water if such a neighborhood watch rule existed. Zimmerman was on public property. I dont believe it would be legal for them to hold any neighborhood watch person to a higher standard than anyone else. A sidewalk is public property. I can walk on a boulevard. And police do not need a warrent to walk on (and arrest someone they see violating a law such as underage consuption). There was no fence crossed (as I understand it).

 

Zimmerman was not part of a capital letter Watch, and had no training afaik.

That isn't the point, though - the point is that the act of following a lone pedestrian at night with a pickup and then getting out of the truck to confront them delivers a serious physical threat of violence, the more so given the well known record of such encounters suffered by young black men in the US. If I had been in Martin's position, I would have been looking around for a weapon, a stick or something - he doesn't seem to have thought of that, but then he doesn't seem to have been a particularly violent person in general.

Which was lucky for Zimmerman, because if he'd been attacked the way he said he was by the thug he portrayed Martin to be, he would still be in the hospital at best.

That's not quite true - he was being followed through a private residential neighborhood, which means the space was not really open to run away into, and he was near his house, which brings in the problem of showing the bad guy where you live. Martin was cornered, actually - Zimmerman didn't know that, but Zimmerman didn't seem to be aware of anything from Martin's pov.

Pushing the fight was all on Zimmerman - Martin didn't walk up to his truck and punch him through the window when he said howdy.

It seems as if Zimmerman's cluelessness, his apparent lack of recognition of the situation he was putting Martin in, has created an aura of innocence around him. That gets him off for murder, maybe, but does not acquit him of responsibility here: if your cluelessly threatening and dumbass behavior with your car on the public street ends up getting someone's child killed, you will face arrest and probable conviction for something; likewise with similarly incompetent chainsaw management, dynamite handling, knife-wielding, swimming pool pranks, etc. Shooting them with a gun has to be about the only way to kill a child by such blatantly dangerous, poorly motivated, and voluntarily exhibited negligence without ending up in jail.

 

LOL *gasp* Free Citizens not registering with the State! OMG! We need more regulation! More taxes! More State! There's a RACE WAR on .....help me Nanny!!!

 

Can be a part if any topic without including your antigovernment trolling

 

Milkweed has a link above to some kind of presentation: yeah,that would be a small-w 'watch'. But that would make his error less egregious: his ignorance doesn't justify his actions, but it has an ameliorating effect on his case.

Without getting into the scenario - but does he use that stick? Does he throw a punch? Who does? And should they? Regarding his character, what I've seen so far suggests they were both hotheads.

He was in a private neighbourhood, true, but he still had physical space in which to maneuver away - and my feeling is he could have outpaced Zimmerman, who doesn't look ridiculously fit. Does SYG from Martin's perspective extend to not showing a potential assailant where your house is? I thought it was for short-term personal defense. I think you have an argument morally, potentially.

I'd say he pushed the confrontation, but that there's a firewall between there and go-time. I've had lots of verbals with people, but there's a line you have to cross to fight. It's much easier to cross if you hate the other guy, mind, but I don't think there's mitigation from that kind of negative social lubrication.

Agreed there.

 

All right, all right. That's not what she was saying.

The fuck is that?

 

He wouldn't know Zimmerman's level of fitness. Where was he supposed to go? Run through people's back yards for the next couple of hours as a black teenager with no guarantee of losing the bad guy anyway and no control over the eventual circumstances of being caught again? Run home with the bad guy watching where he lived? He was cornered - the guy caught him within sight of his house, and nowhere else to go.

My own rule of thumb, thankfully never pushed to a murderous level, was to be ready to hit them with everything I had if they started to get out of the truck - slam them with the door, if possible, as a handy weapon.

Beg to differ. Failure to obtain driver's instruction and license before plowing one's car into a kid walking home from school does not ameliorate one's case. Failure to get training in the handling of explosives before blowing up the neighbor's garage does not ameliorate one's case.

 

The Sideshow Continues

I would point out that you don't get to come out swinging and then complain that I'm not handling you with kid gloves, but it's not like the obvious has ever stopped you before.

Well, to be honest, I thought the quoted portion would have been sufficient, but let us review:

"Ding ding. First the topic, then the excuse. No, it isn't so, Geoff! But let me reiterate what I just said about social justice! Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes. My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for. I'm more concerned with the probability of his guilt than whether he's the goat the narrative demands. He might be, but maybe you should be concerned about that too. Are you focused on this case because of its prominence? Because of the detail involved (such as it is)? Are there no other cases that might make this argument for you?"​

Yeah, you see why I quoted just the two sentences? That whole paragraph is a stupid mess.

But we can go with more than the two sentences in order to make the point a little more clearly:

"Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes. My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for."​

The boldfaced portion is where you run into the problem, though that next sentence is also telling.

But yes, there are societal differences. And that's part of the problem.

And that you made that defense of the outcomes while refusing to answer an unambiguous question doesn't really help, either.

In the end, though, dismissing the problem because it is the problem is a pretty half-witted defense, so I'll happily give you whatever credit you think you're due for discrediting racism so aptly.

You would prefer that I be more euphemistic?

Very well.

And I have come to expect your windmills. Tilt away. Like I said, I'm happy to let you discredit racism with this half-assed, ill-conceived, pantomime.

And in the trial, the transcript of the question does not adequately express investigator Chris Serino's disbelief when asked the question:

O'MARA: My question a little while ago was whether or not you have any evidence to support any contention that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to. Do you have any evidence to support that?

CHRIS SERINO, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR: I would answer I information yes, that there was just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after his conversation. That's my interpretation. There was some following.

(qtd. in Sharpton)​

My problem with this point of your argument is that it ignores over a year of public discourse; there are reasons people suspect Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. Some of this is about the point Serino made, about the location of Trayvon Martin's body. And some of that is that we have never known, exactly, because George Zimmerman cannot or will not tell us, what route he took in pursuit of Trayvon Martin. And, of course, it's only made harder by the fact that this resident of the community and would-be watch captain apparently doesn't know the names of the streets in the community he is patrolling. But either George Zimmerman is really, really fast, or he took a "long" route back to his truck. I suppose, though, he has the defense of not knowing where he was in the neighborhood he lives in and patrols with a lethal weapon at his side. Indeed, click the link, watch the video; you only have to put up with Sharpton for a few seconds to get to Serino's part in that segment of the show. Serino appears to be like many other people in the Zimmerman/Martin discussion: He is surprised at the question. It's almost like having a discussion with some people at Sciforums; I would guess he expected questions about how he established his recorded interpretation—you know, back when the shooting happened, and Serino filed a report recommending probable cause for arrest.

Zimmerman gets the presumption of innocence. But he is also unreliable, and the only way that presumption of innocence holds is if one ignores that unreliability.

Starting with that presumption of innocence is appropriate. However, your apparent lack of awareness of what people have been discussing for the last fifteen months undermines any pretense of credibility about the opinions you're expressing.

I put these two together because they reflect the inherent racism of your argument.

We'll approach that point from three directions:

• Robin D. G. Kelley, currently the Nash Professor of American History at UCLA notes in his description of "how the system worked":

The NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative lobbying group responsible for drafting and pushing "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country, insist that an armed citizenry is the only effective defense against imminent threats, assailants, and predators.

But when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, teenage pedestrian returning home one rainy February evening from a neighborhood convenience store, the NRA went mute. Neither NRA officials nor the pro-gun wing of the Republican Party argued that had Trayvon Martin been armed, he would be alive today. The basic facts are indisputable: Martin was on his way home when Zimmerman began to follow him—first in his SUV, and then on foot. Zimmerman told the police he had been following this "suspicious-looking" young man. Martin knew he was being followed and told his friend, Rachel Jeantel, that the man might be some kind of sexual predator. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other, a fight ensued, and in the struggle Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. This is a fact. Martin could have run, I suppose, but every black man knows that unless you're on a field, a track, or a basketball court, running is suspicious and could get you a bullet in the back. The other option was to ask this stranger what he was doing, but confrontations can also be dangerous—especially without witnesses and without a weapon besides a cell phone and his fists. Florida law did not require Martin to retreat, though it is not clear if he had tried to retreat. He did know he was in imminent danger.

Where was the NRA on Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground? What happened to their principled position? Let's be clear: the Trayvon Martins of the world never had that right because the "ground" was never considered theirs to stand on. Unless black people could magically produce some official documentation proving that they are not burglars, rapists, drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes, intruders, they are assumed to be "up to no good."

(Boldface accent added)​

• President Obama was a bit more diplomatic about the point:

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.​

• And if you need it in the form of a picture, this one has been making the rounds lately:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Your refusal to acknowledge Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground is, well what? You seem to resent the obvious, which is always an amusing spectacle to witness. So if it's not racism, why are you refusing Trayvon Martin's rights?

That this is a predictable outcome with Zimmerman's supporters is inevitable.

Okay, we get it. You're not racist. So, then, where is Martin's right to feel afraid of a mysterious guy suspiciously following him in a car and then getting out of that vehicle to chase him on foot?

And that's where the broader statistical outcomes become extremely, vitally relevant. The outcome in Florida was generally predictable despite people's best hopes for justice.

For many of us as African-Americans, that night was a recurring nightmare driven to a horrific conclusion. It was the driving-while-black traffic stops, the "born suspect" joke that isn’t, the cost of being black in a nation that considers black the natural color of criminality.

(Pitts Jr., "Zimmerman")

• • •​

And if Gates looked like a lawbreaker to James Crowley, well, to me he looks like former Los Angeles Lakers star Jamaal Wilkes, pulled over because the tags on his car were "about to" expire; like clean-shaven, 6-foot-4 businessman Earl Graves Jr., detained by police searching for a mustachioed 5-foot-10 suspect; like Amadou Diallo, executed while reaching for his wallet.

And like me, with hands up and a rifle trained on my chest by an officer who later claimed he stopped me in that predominantly white neighborhood for a traffic violation.

Because I look like Henry Louis Gates, he looks like Jamaal Wilkes, and we all look like some dangerous, predatory black man intent on mayhem. So there is no shock here—only a sobering reminder that the old canard is, at some level, true. We all look alike.

(Pitts Jr., "Gates")​

Working on it. The keywords are common enough to make it hard to search through this much press.

Yours, apparently, since you keep trying to frame this around scapegoating.

Actually, Geoff, you've demonstrated that you have no clue what my argument is. Then again, there's nothing new under the sun.

As I've said repeatedly, the law and justice system in Florida worked exactly as it is supposed to.

The difference Zimmerman's supporters are attempting to obscure is that between "not guilty" and "innocent". And that's what SYG laws are for. As the Attorney General said, these laws aim to fix something that isn't broken. And as I explained previously, the main difference between self-defense and SYG is that one need not actually be in danger.

What people are generally upset about is the fact that this is how it's supposed to go in Florida. George Zimmerman? Not guilty. Marissa Alexander? Well if she had shot and killed her husband, maybe she would have skated. Michael Dunn? One would presume he will be acquitted, except the bit about calling for pizza instead of informing police, and the lack of concern shown by his fiancee, who was present at the time, might hurt him when it comes to trial. Then again, he doesn't need to be in actual danger, he couldn't have known he actually killed anyone, as the car was speeding away as he shot it up, and nobody can prove that the dead black teenager didn't have a shotgun. It should be added, that last doesn't actually matter. Under SYG, all Dunn has to say is that he thought he saw a shotgun. Sure, he's apparently under mortal threat long enough to get into his car, open the glove box, remove the weapon, unholster it, chamber a round ("quicker than a flash", our would-be hero boasts), and start shooting. He admits he doesn't know what he heard (i.e., threats that frightened him), but insists he saw a shotgun. I don't know whether he's playing for the dumb Negro bit suggesting someone could be stupid enough to threaten him with a shotgun and then sit there while he retrieves his handgun from the car and starts shooting, or if we're supposed to believe that Dunn was dealing with Cleveland Brown, Jr. To the other, a grand jury has indicted Dunn on First Degree Murder charges, and while this might sound like a good thing, the prosecuter has pursued, and the grand jury endorsed, a charge that will be exceptionally difficult to prove. Dunn has a pretty good chance of skating.

We'll see how this one goes.

But this is the underlying issue. These laws are inherently dangerous, and, yes, the outcomes accentuate racial issues in our society. Additionally, Zimmerman's profile of Martin was inaccurate; when you get down to the idea of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Martin didn't fit. But he was black. And wearing a hoodie. And that was enough to make him "suspicious".

Zimmerman screwed up, badly. But the law is designed specifically to protect people like him. That is what people are pissed off about. Someone can make that many mistakes, kill another person, and it's all supposed to be good?

And in the aftermath, with the law having worked exactly how it's supposed to, Zimmerman's defenders are still trying to change history because they're damn well aware of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".

If Zimmerman looks like a scapegoat, it's because he's the most prominent example of what's wrong with these laws. Or, as Ta-Nehisi Coates explained:

I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.

An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did -- buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait.​

This is what the law allows and the justice system encourages in Florida.

And, yes, we see how this goes. People's outrage right now is as much about the future as about the past. And continuing with Coates:

It's worth remembering that what caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all. This case was really unique because of what happened with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.​

It's not quite an aside, Geoff, but have you ever witnessed someone bemoaning the length of my posts?

At any rate, do you really need this discussion to jump back to square zero and start all over from the beginning? Do we really need to reenact fifteen months worth of discussion?

It's not about hating you, Geoff. Indeed, I would pity you, except we moved past that long ago.

Shh. The maestro is decomposing.

This from one of our in-house masters of libel? Cha!

Maybe it would be more accurate to say I would pity you, except there really is no point.

Actually there isn't.

Oh, it's possible. Who knows what sweet-nothing lies your little bird whispers in your ear?

I'm more worried about when you're going to bother setting a precedent for your own honesty.

But as long as you're tilting windmills and going out of your way to be provocative, don't expect to be handled with kid gloves.
____________________

Notes:

Sharpton, Al. Politics Nation. MSNBC, New York. July 2, 2013. NBCNews.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755884/vp/52379625#52379625

Kelley, Robin D. G. "The U.S. v. Trayvon Martin: How the System Worked ". The Huffington Post. July 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-d-g-kelley/nra-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin_b_3599843.html

Obama, Barack. "President Obama’s remarks on Trayvon Martin (full transcript)". The Washington Post. July 19, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story_2.html

Broward, Charles and Larry Hannan. "Michael Dunn remains adamant in police interview after killing Jordan Davis". The Florida Times-Union. April 9, 2013. Jacksonville.com. July 25, 2013. http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...t-police-interview-after-killing-jordan-davis

Occupy Posters. "The One Simple Graphic that Sums Up the Whole Problem with the Trayvon Martin Case". Daily Kos. July 23, 2013. DailyKos.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...he-Whole-Problem-with-the-Trayvon-Martin-Case

Pitts Jr., Leonard. "Zimmerman verdict leaves key question unanswered". Miami Herald. July 14, 2013. MiamiHerald.com. July 25, 2013.

—————. "The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident: Sometimes, they just don't see you". The Seattle Times. July 24, 2009. SeattleTimes.com. July 25, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009533389_pitts26.html

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "On the Killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman". The Atlantic. July 14, 2013. TheAtlantic.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/national...of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/

 

Oh good gods.

Imagine your daughter looks at some man the wrong way, he takes offence, confronts her with a punch to her nose breaking it and sending blood spaying across her face; as she stumbles to the ground he pounces. Following a series of martial art body punches to her chest he then grabs her skull and starts repeatedly bashing it into the curb of the sidewalk while whispering to her she's going to die. Blacking out from repeated blunt trauma to her head and with blood gelling in her hair from the lacerations - she shoots him.

The End


This story was oked for your reading pleasure by the NSA. You're friendly Governmental Agency keeping tabs on each and every letter you type while you type it. AND Up next: "Demagoguery" A story of how you look Right while the Left steals your wallet and then look Left while the Right steals your watch. We now return you to "Fat Hispanic Man".... he's not really scary, but you should be scared anyway .... you know, because he's *gasp* Half Peruvian!

 

@ Michael

Oh no Michael, you see to Mr. Newspaper here, that is not going to sell in the media and to Mrs.B this is racist case because he is just black, so its racist, period.

You know what separates black people from the rest? They are united, they help each other. In the market or outside on the street. This is why Mr. T has become a media hype, he has supporters who care, regardless of reality of this criminal.

@ Bells

Bells you are obviously on the side of the black community and Treyvor guy, meanwhile Zimmerman is ünderqualified and untrained in your opinion, well I want to know is why do you not support people who defend themselves against an obvious felon who has attacked a person to rob him? And if Zimmerman was black and the guy was white, whose side would you really take? Do you always take a side of whoeverlooks as innocent little person?

you are supporting an ïnnocent student who...walked up to this man on a street and did THIS to him and told that he will KILL him...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

@ Tiassa
Anyways Tiassa is obviously on Bells side, it is easy to find the cutest little eye tearing picture of a minority guy and put large texts to make us cry...but the facts are that Mr. Innocent guy was the attacker, whoever you paint it.

 

And now look at the angel you are supporting Bells:
And now look at what does not sell in the media, the truth:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Imagine not looking at photoshopped angelic pictures hidden behind large text, Imagine looking at reality.

Imagine that, Tiassa and Bells. I dare you.

 

Nothing you or micheal have repeatedly referred to as facts and the truth is actually either of them I like how a guy who stalks and hunts down a kid is automatically considered to be acting in self defense while his victim is automatically considered the agressor

 

And how did you automatically assume this kid is hunted down and stalked if he beat up another man´s nose and told him he will kill him, meanwhile automatically considering the person who saved his own life from a criminal as an aggressor?

And how do you automatically surpass the knowledge of the case, uphold the law into your own standards, and the wipe away jurys proof of innocence of Zimmerman?

 

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Calling you an asshole, Tiassa, is not coming out swinging. It was an insult, sure. But as an insult, it was pretty tame compared to this new line of attack of yours.

Firstly -

is not a defense of the racism of self-defense outcomes. I'm sorry, Tiassa, but there is really no possible way in which to spin the first statement into the second. The first is an acknowledgement of the statistics. The second concerns the specific case of Zimmerman/Martin. That's it. I realize that for you the trend is overwhelming; that the trend utterly dominates your thinking, like a micro-cosm of making definitive connections between ratio-based statistics and this case. High ratios do not equal complete concordance in independent observations. And that's that.

As I said, you're free to hate me every bit as much as you like - hate away! - but you'll notice I wasn't dancing in the street about Zimmerman's being found innocent. That should be telling, rather than these increasingly pleading arguments that I am racist, or that my arguments are. At this stage, I don't think you even know what they are. And a justification of your new line with a series of speciously constructed arguments using selective interpretations of the event - what, exactly, is that meant to prove? I could post Zimmerman supporter selections in the same manner. And what would that prove? Are you trying to show off cut-and-paste talents heretofore unknown?

Next, you beg the reader to believe that I somehow deny Martin's SYG rights: all right - in what way have I argued against them? Where have I denied them? Which party have I concluded was innocent, and which guilty? You're proceeding from a framework of ignorance to ignorant accusations. If you can't be bothered to learn the limitations of your own knowledge base, why should anyone else respect your argument? I'll tell you what, though: locate this apparent denial and I'll address it. Bonne chance.

It's more troubling if you actually mean your line of argument as other than a cramped rhetorical object: do you really think that I should I instead base my impressions of guilt and innocence in this matter on pre-existing trends? I thought you were meant to be a moderator of Ethics. I can only conclude that you genuinely feel that Zimmerman should have been convicted not on the evidence, but on ratios. I don't want to throw your endless accusations regarding 'honesty' back in your face, but - honestly? Tell me this is a phase or something.

I fisked a little here:

Your argument is not based in any way on those fifteen months, but rather on statistics associated with SYG crime, and race. Your enormous posts have touched on it only grazingly and recently despite their vaunted length. When I pointed this out, you flew off on a rampage, calling me a racist, calling my arguments racist, associating me off and on with Zimmerman supporters. Again, I appreciate how important this case is to you, and I fully appreciate the background statistics: but that doesn't make Zimmerman either innocent or guilty.

So if there's a racist in this discussion - and you insist that there must be - then I'm sorry, but it's you. You rely on correlation and race as a beginning, middle and end. That's, as you say, definitive. Or are you seeking to redefine the milieu?

 

Seriously, do you actually think before you post?

Oh, my God! A black juvenile acting like ... a juvenile!

Oh! the horror!

Simone de Beauvoir's point can nearly be rewritten here. Except instead of women being accused of acting like men, black men are just accused of being downright scary.