Stephen A. Smith: Mark Cuban is just being honest. Get over it

Mark Cuban said he would cross the street late at night if he saw a “black kid in a hoodie” or a “white guy with a shaved head and lots of tattoos.”

The “hoodie” reference rekindles memories of a hooded black teenager holding a bag of skittles and ice tea, while walking in his father’s gated neighborhood.  He was killed that night. It’s too soon to cite an example connecting hoodies, black youth and fear.

Trayvon Martin’s death exposed the power of perception.  Cuban’s honest analysis reminds us of how prejudices lead to dangerous outcomes.  Be it walking across the street, refusing to hire a person, or shooting a person due to fear, first impressions go a long way toward determining what happens next.

Cuban claims bigotry is something we all carry.  He admits it shows up in his life and among people working for him.  Rather than fire them, Cuban sends them off for diversity training.  He gives them a chance to learn from their mistakes.  He says it’s best to teach lesson versus kicking the can down the road.

Cuban’s comments reflect the knotty nature related to dealing with bigotry in the workplace.  Given bigotry is deeply engrained in human nature, what’s the big deal? That’s Cuban’s position.

“I also try not to be a hypocrite. I know I’m prejudiced. I know I’m bigoted in a lot of different ways,” Cuban said. “I’ve said this before. If I see a black kid in a hoodie at night on the same side of the street, I’m probably going to walk to other side of the street. If I see a white guy with a shaved head and lots of tattoos, I’m going back to the other side of the street. If I see anybody that looks threatening, and I try not to, but part of me takes into account race and gender and image. I’m prejudiced. Other than for safety issues, I try to always catch my prejudices and be very self-aware.”

Is Cuban correct to assert that we all have prejudices impacting our daily decisions? If so, who is liable for the pigeonholes formed to keep people at a distant? 

ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith said those criticizing Mark needed to "grow up."

"I took no issue whatsoever with what Mark Cuban said," Smith said on ESPN’s First Take on Thursday. "He happens to be correct."

“I’m sorry, I don’t see a problem with that whatsoever. I don’t think there’s any ethnic group in America that should take issue with it as a personal affront to them as if he was isolating them or talking about them. He was simply being honest, forthcoming and very open about some of the fears and prejudices that he may have.”

Cuban is just being honest.  He helps us by sharing his personal views.  Is it that simple?  Is Smith right in granting Cuban a pass after using hoodie to reference his own bigotry?

What is implied in our granting space for a person to admit they are bigoted in a lot of different ways, and that all of us are confronted with the same?  Should we embrace our bigotry as a reflection of our humanity, and blame others for fueling our bigoted ways.

If I have prejudices against black boys wearing hoodies, it’s up to those boys to stop wearing hoodies.  Is that the answer to all forms of bigotry?  Rather than exposing bigotry for its evil consequences, are we to assume it as normative, and attack those who bring our prejudices to the forefront?

Smith argues a practical approach to confronting bigotry and prejudice.  He wants black boys to pull up their pants and put on a suit and tie.  He embraces Cuban’s position as real talk about how black people need to take responsibility for how they are perceived by others.  Bigotry and prejudice, in the mind of Smith, is the responsibility of the individual to overcome.

There’s truth to Smith’s claim.  It is up to the individual to create distance from those fixated in a culture that correlates dress with behavior.  Smith’s call for personal responsibility challenges youth to dress in a way that helps ease the apprehension of those carrying prejudices?

“It is about how you present yourself,” Smith said on Friday’s broadcast of First Take. I’m trying to educate you on the minefield that you face.”

Smith claims black people are too busy pointing the finger of blame while not taking responsibility for what it takes to be a success. He says Cuban is correct to draw attention to his prejudices and bigotry around black boys wearing hoodies.

Smith’s position may be correct, but it offers space for people to remain comfortable with their bigotry.  If we all have prejudices, and that may be true, it is up to others to make concessions.  Bigotry is not about a system of thought rooted in misconceptions about a group of people.  It’s about the failure of that group to capitulate to the demands of those with the power to open doors to success.

Cuban offers an explanation for the existence of the bigotry of people like Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers.  All of us have issues with bigotry and prejudice.  Sterling is no different than the rest of us.

Really?

The conclusion is simple.  Since all of us have issues, deal with your own rather than throwing stones. 

To that Smith offers a recommendation to black youth.  It’s your fault for failing to make the necessary adjustments.

Conclusion: bigotry is your fault.

George Zimmerman will ask Florida to reimburse $300,000 in legal expenses

I was just getting over George Zimmerman’s acquittal. I was ready to move on. After a long inhale, followed by a short exhale, I had released.

Now I’m mad again.

After lengthy diatribe regarding faults with Florida’s “stand your ground” law, I was willing to concede the jury’s verdict had more to do with the reading of the law versus embedded racism. My attention slowly shifted to the law versus the players.  I began to see the acquittal of Zimmerman as a way to expose a wide range of problems with the criminal justice system.

I’m mad again.  I‘m outraged.  Yes, the wound just reopened.

After the turbulent aftermath of the jury’s decision to let Zimmerman walk after shooting Trayvon Martin, you would expect humility.   You would expect Zimmerman and his star studded defense team to respect how the case dealt a deep blow to the nation’s communal consciousness.

Get this.  Zimmerman is about to ask the state of Florida to reimburse him for as much as $300,000 in expenses he racked up to pay for his defense.  Zimmerman and his attorney’s claim he deserves to be reimbursed because he was acquitted of second-degree murder.

Zimmerman's request is based on a Florida law that says a defendant who's acquitted isn't liable for costs associated with his or her case. It must be approved by a judge or a clerk. Attorney fees for the defense team wouldn't be part of the motion.

The request is troubling for multiple reasons. To begin, the amount of the request reveals the price tag to win a murder case.  Zimmerman’s attorneys are seeking refunds for money spent on fees for expert witnesses and court reporters for depositions, travel and other expenses.

One is left pondering how much it took to defend Zimmerman.  What is the actual cost after considering the legal team’s pro bono work in the case?  How much does it cost to win when the odds are against you?

The Zimmerman case disturbs me due to how it unearths the influence economics plays in the court of law.  The scale of justice s weighed not by the evidence, but by the cash placed on the scale.

But, it’s the request that troubles me in this situation.  Zimmerman’s legal team has the right to demand reimbursement for expenses. It’s common practice in cases involving second-degree murder.

Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s attorney, told the Orlando Sentinel he's been paid nothing by Zimmerman but has kept billing records. O’Mara took the case on a pro bono basis, and now wants to be paid for he expenses he incurred to defend his client.

Can’t blame him for that.

With that being said, wouldn’t the wise move be to not push for the reimbursement?  Wouldn’t it serve the purpose of national healing for Zimmerman and his attorneys to concede enough damage has been done?  Couldn’t they simply walk away rather than forcing the state to pay for the trail?

Can’t we let this rest?  Just because you can doesn’t make it right.

Finally, should state taxpayers reimburse attorneys for expenses related to those cases that the prosecutors can’t prove? Is this a form of punishment for bringing the case to trial? How are expenses applied when the accused is forced, due to economic restrictions, to use a public defender?

Conclusion? The system is designed to support those with massive resources.

Mad again.

The Zimmerman decision exposes deep-rooted assumptions regarding black men.

Now the hard part begins.  Black America has to contend with what we know to be true.

We know that look of disdain that keeps many at a safe distance.  We know the look of judgment when all we seek is to purchase a bag of Skittles.

We’re not surprised by the verdict to acquit George Zimmerman.  We saw it coming.  We know the elaborate ploys to protect the interest of those invested in keeping black men in their proper place.  The hard part is not in hearing the verdict, but in listening to commentary aimed at convincing us it’s not about race.

We’re forced to listen to ceaseless narrative that will blame prosecutors for failing to prove their case.  The trial will be taken apart, piece by piece, in hope of persuading us it was a lack of evidence rather than race that freed Zimmerman.  We’re expected to concede the errors of prosecution while ending the racial pontificating at the root of the story.

Are we to approve the summation of legal expert’s intent on deflating the angst that has black parents afraid to allow their boys to walk alone at night?  Are we to refute the mounting evidence of rulings that discredits the value of black life taken by a person who makes a judgment before saying hello?

Should we accept the notion that prosecutors failed to prove their case, or should we question assumptions surrounding the evidence?

What is implied in jurors rejecting a lesser verdict of manslaughter?  Should we decry the suggestion that Zimmerman acted in a reasonable way to protect his own life when the evidence proves he put himself in danger by following Martin?  Shouldn’t he be punished for racial profiling and failing to honor the recommendation of the 911 dispatcher?

This case rationalizes racial profiling.  In claiming the absolute innocence of Zimmerman, the jury has added muscle to those who presume guilt based on a profile.  That position is rooted in racism, yet we are asked to discount its significance in Martin’s death

A mostly white jury believed Zimmerman had the right to defend himself because he was afraid.  That fear didn’t prevent him from stalking Martin.  He had a gun.  He was trained to use that gun.  Martin was unarmed.  Zimmerman’s harassing of Martin was enough to trigger Martin’s fear; however, the jury brought into Zimmerman’s fear.

Why wouldn’t they? Most people fear black men.  Accepting Zimmerman’s argument of fear played into conceptions of race.

The jury downplayed Zimmerman’s pattern of “profiling”. Prosecutors played five calls to police made months before the shooting.  The phone calls made to the dispatcher that night wasn’t enough to prove “profiling” and “ill-will”. 

“These a------ always get away,” Zimmerman said followed by, according to prosecutors, Zimmerman muttering “f----- punks” under his breath.

His comments assumed guilt.  Those words suggested intent, but the evidence was not enough.  Why?

Maybe the jurors view Zimmerman as a hero for protecting people from the “f ------- punks”.  Maybe the jury agrees with his assessment – they always get away.  Who are they?

Isn’t that a position based on a racial stereotype? If so, isn’t this about race?

Isn’t it troubling that the age of Trayvon was disregarded? Shouldn’t we consider the youth and innocence when discussing the matter of fear? Rachel Jeantel, 18, was on the phone with Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Trayvon told her he was being followed.

Trayvon told her of a “creepy-ass cracker” was watching him as he walked home from the convenience store. She heard Zimmerman angrily demand to know what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood.  She heard a bump – the sound of Trayvon’s cell phone headset hitting the ground.

She heard Trayvon’s voice: “Get off! Get off!”

Isn’t that enough to prove aggression?

She’s only 18.  Legal experts say she was not polished or articulate.  Her testimony never changed, yet we are told to discredit her testimony because it failed to impress.  Isn’t the unwillingness to concede her testimony rooted in notions regarding race? Has her testimony been minimized by those who make judgments of black people?

The jury was asked to rule based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.  The law eliminates a citizen’s “duty to retreat” before using lethal force.  We are asked to buy into the argument that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was at risk while all the evidence suggests the opposite claim.

Lead Detective Chris Serino refuted Zimmerman claim that he never “followed” Trayvon. Zimmerman’s statement to the police was full of inconsistences, a point that failed to sway the jury.  What is implied by their decision not to consider those discrepancies when weighed against other testimonies?

What about the 911 call made by the neighbor near the scene? Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s mother, and Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon’s older brother, identified the voice on the recording as Trayvon.

The defense called eight witnesses who claimed the voice was Zimmerman’s, including his mother.  In the end, it came down to who the jury believed – the mother and brother of Trayvon or the friends and family of the man who, according to the evidence, chased the 17-year-old while assuming his guilt.

The judge’s decision not to allow the testimony of an audio expert may have decided the case.  The expert was ready to testify that the voice on the tape is Trayvon Martin. 

How should we feel about that exclusion of evidence?

What about the sound of the wind on Zimmerman’s call to police, suggesting he was chasing Trayvon? The defense claimed Martin was the aggressor, but all the evidence says otherwise.  That is for those capable of seeing how evidence can be tainted by those who bring their own notions of race to the case. The fact that Zimmerman may have been beaten by Martin doesn’t negate the truth related to Zimmerman’s aggression.  It merely proves that he approached the wrong person and took his beating poorly.  He pulled the trigger to end the beating.

At issue is who won the fight.  Shouldn’t the question be who started it and why?

Zimmerman was the aggressor with a gun.  Martin was on the phone when approached. Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman’s intent.  He defended himself. He may have won the fight, but Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

Help me understand how this is not about race.

This is about the right to kill a black man after you start a fight and find yourself on the bad side of that decision.  This is about validating racial profiling.  This is about affirming the fear of a black teen when there is nothing to fear.

This is not about the law. It’s about the application of that law from the position of white fear.  The defense team used that fear to convince the jury Zimmerman had the right to kill.

What is the lesson?  Don’t assume I’m up to no good.  In your mind, I may look like a criminal. In my mind you look like a person looking for a fight.

 

Rest in peace Trayvon. Justice knows the truth.

Zimmerman trial about the value of a black man's life

The nation is standing on pens and needles as we wait for the jury to decide the fate of George Zimmerman.  The jury can convict him of second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, convict him of manslaughter or declare him not guilty.

The Zimmerman case is this generation’s version of the O.J. Simpson trail. The dreadful death of Nicole Simpson forced deeper conversations related to domestic violence and race. Martin’s death exposes issues related to assumptions about black men and the value of their bodies.

On Trial is taking the life of a black man with little risk.

Are the lives of black man is not worth protecting?  Laws are created to make it difficult to punish those who take a black man’s life.  The criminal justice system is conceived in a way that keeps black men trapped. 

Those are a few of the underlying messages.

The Zimmerman case places America on trial for making it easy to take a black man’s life.  If acquitted, a message is Martin deserved to die.

He deserved to die for walking at night.  It’s his fault for wearing a hoodie.  He shouldn’t have been there.  He deserved to be followed and shot for not honoring Zimmerman’s role as a watch commander.

He should have stopped.  He should have trusted Zimmerman’s authority. Is there a different set of laws governing black men?

When followed I should assume the person following has good intentions.  I should discount the examples of black men being chased, robbed and killed.  I can’t run. I can’ fight back. If I’m killed, it’s my fault.

Zimmerman is a wannabe cop.  He had no badge. Are black men being told that we have to honor anyone who suspects us of a crime merely because of our race?  Do you expect me to accept a verdict based on a law designed to empower a person to kill based on their assumptions?

What do you say to black boys? Don’t walk at night.  Never wear a hoddie. Never run from a person following you. Don’t defend yourself if he comes at you with a gun.

"He automatically assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal," Bernie de la Rionda, the prosecutor said. "And that’s why we’re here."

Martin was an “innocent 17-year-old kid” who had just celebrated his birthday three weeks earlier and was just walking back from buying Skittles and a drink a convenience store when Zimmerman started following him, de la Rionda said.

Zimmerman “decided he was up to no good,” the prosecutor said.

"He assumed things that weren’t true. Instead of waiting for the police to come and do their job, he did not. He, the defendant, wanted to make sure that Trayvon Martin didn’t get out of the neighborhood."

De la Rionda stressed what he said were inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story, repeatedly focusing on the defendant’s statement to police that Martin hit him 20 to 30 times, even though witnesses said his injuries appeared minor.

"Why exaggerate them unless he’s lying about the whole thing?” the prosecutor asked.

The prosecutor addressed the dispute over who is heard yelling in the background of a 911 call during the struggle —  by showing jurors a slide that asked which item’s owner would be more like to scream for help above a picture of a gun and a picture of a juice drink.

Jurors were also shown Martin’s autopsy photo.

“They [Martin’s parents] can’t take any more photos and that’s true because of the actions of one person, the man before you, the defendant George Zimmerman, the man who is guilty of second-degree murder.”

Don’t send a message to black parents that the lives of their sons are disposable. 

How we feel about black boys in on trial.

Still standing on pens and needles. 

Blame it on the Hoodie

I can take a sigh of massive relief now that I know why Trayvon Martin was killed. It isn’t a case of vigilantly gone wild, as I had assumed. Our friend Geraldo Rivera has uncovered the truth. Blame the hoodie.

"I'll bet you money that if he didn't have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way," Rivera said on “Fox and Friends”. He said the death of Trayvon should be a warning to parents to watch what their children wear.

"If you dress like a hoodlum eventually some schmuck is going to take you at your word," he wrote in a commentary posted Friday on the website Fox News Latino. "No one black, brown or white can honestly tell me that seeing a kid of color with a hood pulled over his head doesn't generate a certain reaction -- sometimes scorn, often menace."

Melisa Harris-Perry took a nibble at Rivera’s comments during her Saturday morning show on MSNBC. She offered her dress code for black safety. To be safe, dress like Steve Urkel. Take notes parents; this could save your kids life.

Avoid red and blue because you might be confused as a gang member. Shop in the section with “mauve, turquoise, or even salmon if you’re daring,” she said. Stay away from those baggy pants. “If the cops don't get you, your parents are sure to get mad for costing them all that money,” she suggested. Last on the list – shun the temptation of wearing those “pesky hoodies.”

Harris-Perry’s commentary reflects a deep angst felt by those forced to endure the feeble attempts to explain what happened that night. Include me on the list of folks fed up with efforts to make the death of Trayvon about something other than a decision to take the life of an innocent kid. I would love to stick a sock in Newt Gingrich’s mount, paint him black and drop him off in my old stomping ground – East St. Louis. I wonder if that would teach him a bit about the privileges that come with being painted white. Inhale, exhale, release. That’s a commentary for another day.

Harris-Perry’s comeback lifts the frustration of parents of black boys. What are they to wear given the way clothing is construed as a measure of thug life? Is part of the burden of being young and black the imperative of isolating oneself from the social norms embraced by other youth? White kids wear hoodies, but black and brown youth should wander from contemporary dress preferences. Does it mean something entirely different when a black or brown kid puts on a hoodie? The Gap, Old Navy, American Eagle, Aeropostale and Abercombie aren’t shops that market their wares to black thugs. All kids shop there.

Rivera’s idiotic deliberation, related to how parents should dress their children, exposes the true nature of how race and racism plays out within the context of American culture. Those black kids who dress to go to school and play are forced to confront how what they wear draws attention to their being more than a kid. Are they too black, too thuggish, too much like those who end up at your local county jail? Is dress a byproduct of criminal inclination, or is dress simply that – dress?

If the burden of parents of black and brown kids is to refute the assumptions of those who read more into dress than dress, the responsibility of altering racial stereotypes is placed in the hands of those victimized by that mindset. Rather than encouraging people to look past those hoodies, kids and parents are challenged to dress in a way that counters the common culture of all kids. Conclusion, dress like Urkel.

Don’t be a kid. Wear a suit and tie to school. Rid your wardrobe of anything construed as too black. It doesn’t matter that other kids wear the same thing. You are held to a higher responsibility due to the way your dress is deemed different because your black or brown skin is underneath your clothing. Clearly, the thing that differentiates you from the rest isn’t the hoodie. It’s your race. Change it anyway because too many black kids have brought into the normal culture of American youth.

Don’t blame racism. Blame the hoodie. Blame the black kid for failing to identify himself as one who is different from other kids his age. You can’t be a kid. Dress like an adult.

I have two hoodies in my closet. Dang! Let me get rid of them before someone shoots me for looking like a thug.