by Doctor Science
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” — William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
Like almost everyone else, I’ve been following the Trayvon Martin case. If you’ve been under a cozy rock, here’s a good summary from Think Progress, another from Mother Jones. Ta-Nehisi Coates’ perspective is invaluable. I haven’t felt I had much to add before now: I just noticed that the case is connected to one of my favorite books of last year.
In The Warmth of Other Suns, Isabel Wilkerson describes the world of Jim Crow and the Great Migration of black Americans to escape it in the still-bigoted North. One of the central characters of the book is George Swanson Starling, a citrus-picker living in Eustis, Florida.
And Eustis is only about 30 miles from Sanford, where Trayvon Martin was killed.
View Larger Map
Direct Google Maps link
Wilkerson describes George Starling’s life in Florida in the 30s and early 40s:
… breaking from protocol could get people like George killed. Under Jim Crow, only white people could sit in judgment of a colored person on trial. White hearsay had more weight than a colored eyewitness. Colored people had to put on a show of cheerful subservience and unquestioning obedience in the presence of white people or face the consequences of being out of line. If children didn’t learn their place, they could get on the wrong side of a white person, and the parents could do nothing to save them. [p.50]
Florida was shut off from the rest of the world by its cypress woods and turpentine camps. It was another country, with its own laws and constitution. And all through the 1920s, when George was a toddler and then in grade school, the grown people hung their heads over the violence that descended over them and passed the stories among themselves and to the children when they got old enough to understand.
They talked about the white mob that burned down the colored section of Ocoee, over by Orlando, when a colored man tried to vote back in 1920, how the man was hanged from a tree and other colored people were burned to death and the remaining colored people packed up and never returned. [p.59]
George was seeing the world in a new light after being in Detroit. The three of them had gotten used to fair wages for their hard work up north and walked with their backs straight now. George, in particular, never had the constitution to act subservient, and his time up north, where colored people didn’t have to step off the sidewalk, only made him more impatient with the role the southern caste system assigned him.
He had gotten used to carrying himself in a different way, talking to white people as equals in Detroit. Now that he was back in Eustis, he made a point to do whatever he could to keep from addressing white people as “sir” or “ma’am”. “They’d say, ‘So and so and so, boy'” he said. I would never say ‘Yes, sir’ or ‘No, sir.’ I’d say, ‘That’s right.’ ‘Sure.’ ‘Certainly.'”
“What do you mean by *certainly*?” would come the indignant reply. “You don’t know how to say, ‘Yes, sir’?” [p.135]
George and two friends tried to organize their fellow workers in the orange groves for better and more honest wages. One day a man who worked for one of the white grove owners came to him.
The yard man said he heard mention of a cypress swamp eighteen miles out from town.
“They talking ’bout taking y’all out to Blackwater Creek”, he said. “They talking ’bout giving y’all a necktie party. They gon’ take y’all out there and hang y’all in one of them cypress trees.”…
Men had been hanged for far less than what George was orchestrating. And there would be no protecting him if he stayed. In Florida and in the rest of the Deep South, “the killing of a Negro by a white man ceased in practice even to call for legal inquiry,” a white southerner observed in the early 1940s. [p.156-57]
That quote is from The Mind of the South by W.J. Cash, who then writes:
But wherever and whenever the forms were still observed, the coroner or jury was all but sure to call it “self-defense” or “justifiable homicide”, and to free the slayer with celerity.
That is part of the history of “self-defense” killings in Florida, and part of the history behind the “Stand Your Ground” law. Markos pointed out on Twitter that “conservatives aren’t arguing that Trayvon should’ve been packing” — even though they’ll always claim that any given shooting death could have been prevented if the victim had only been armed.
The Warm of Other Suns taught me a great deal about 20th-century experience of black Americans, things I didn’t know or hadn’t put together into a coherent picture. To understand what it’s like for black people, especially black men, today, Ta-Nehisi Coates is enormously helpful. Via Tom Levenson I recently found Question Bridge: Black Males, which as Tom says is a way for us white folks to “eavesdrop” on black men talking to each other about what’s important in their lives. Sometimes you’ve got to just listen to other people’s stories.
I notice the trend of omitting mention of Zimmerman’s head wounds, and the witness seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, continues. Just not good enough with all the details, I guess.
And, Brett, my goodness, you failed to provide all the other details of the story! You’ve omitted facts.
Just not good enought with all the details, I guess.
The trend of ignorant apologists contorting reality into crazy shapes to avoid calling a racially-motivated murder what it is continues apace.
I have made a studied effort to not discuss this issue with anyone.
How, in the face of such great tragedy, can one step into divert the conversation from the core issue,was Trayvon actually murdered?
However, after enough people take the facts and explode them into a Jim Crow indictment of a whole society it becomes frustrating for those people who have worked for two generations to have the questionable actions of a few compared to the widespread racism of 60 or 70 years ago.
A small town Neighborhood Watch vigilante way overstepped his bounds and in the very best case provoked a confrontation that ended in a boy getting killed. The suspect actions of a police force that has been under investigation more than once, in a tucked away part of Florida should be, and are being, investigated.
My view is best summed up in the last two paragraphs of this opinion piece by Sherrilyn A. Ifill.
Black mothers aren’t the only mothers who warn their kids of how to act in stores, on the street and when the cops pull them over. White kids get killed by cops and vigilantes, too.
We should all be grieving and wondering how we change a culture of fear and suspicion. Perhaps a common solution would be more effective.
When I saw your title, I thought that it might be linked to this Nation piece by Dave Zirin
But Sanford, Florida, does have its own history and it includes a collective moment of intolerance and bigotry that almost derailed the man Martin Luther King Jr. called “a freedom rider before freedom rides,” Jackie Robinson.
read the rest, as the saying goes.
I notice the trend of omitting mention of Zimmerman’s head wounds, and the witness seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, continues. Just not good enough with all the details, I guess.
Trayvon Martin was minding his own business and being stalked around the neighborhood by a suspicious looking man in an SUV talking on a cellphone. Said man suddenly gets out of the car and starts following him. If I’m Trayvon Martin, my read on that is “kidnapper” or “sexual predator,” and if I need to defend myself, I’m going to do so.
Did Martin not have the right to Stand His Ground, Brett? Is that only for white people?
(Don’t answer, it’s rhetorical.)
ROFLMAO at Marty immediately trying to point out that white people are the real victims here. Never change, Marty.“Perhaps a common solution would be more effective.”
Gun control?
Goddammit Phil, make more of an effort to curb the ad hominem remarks. I’m striking through that comment.
That’s not an ad hom, Doc. An ad hom would be, “Marty is a yutz, therefore his argument has no merit.” It was an observation about the absolute silliness of trying to make this into something about white people. But you do whatever you have to do; I’ve long since resigned myself to the fact that, whatever noxious garbage Brett and avedis pump out, you are going to single me out for opprobrium no matter what I say. Knock yourself out!
Gun control?
That’s what I’d vote for, Julian, but I guess it’s impossible for the time being. Instead, “stand your ground” laws have caused Florida “justified killings” (self defense) to almost triple each year (from 13 per year prior to their enactment to 36 per year after).
I’m not sure why it’s even controversial that this killing should have been investigated immediately. And people here really think that there’s no racial component?
Thank you, Doctor Science, for writing about this issue. And Ta-Nehisi Coates has been incredibly enlightening for the past year. (That’s when I really started paying attention, so maybe it’s nothing new.)
Phil, I think it’s general courtesy to address someone by the name they choose. Thanks.
CCDG, the name Sherrilyn A. Ifill had me google a bit, and she’s the cousin of Gwen Ifill. I also checked out the book she authored which was On the courthouse lawn: confronting the legacy of lynching in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the paragraph before your excerpt says
The teenage rites of passage that thrill our white counterpoints send fear down a black mother’s spine. When your child is old enough to walk to a friend’s house in the neighborhood, it can mean the first of many stop-and-frisk encounters with the police. When they turn 18, they can now be arrested and charged as an adult for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A new driver’s license and car opens the door to driving-while-black stops. Just having a flat tire in the road can end with a senseless murder, like the death of Camille and Bill Cosby’s son Ennis on the Los Angeles freeway in 1997.
So I’m not sure if she would accept your reduction of her argument to the last two paragraphs of the piece.
lj,
I read and understand her pov. I was impressed that she went on to point out that this is just a part of the picture.
I would love to sit and have a talk with her to know if she really believes that all of those rites of passage are really such a thrill for her white counterparts.
Certainly driving-while-black is a unique problem to her community, except for driving while Latino, or driving a not nice enough car to be in this neighborhood.
As a father of 4 and grandfather of tweens I don’t understand why the others are thought to be uniquely a black experience.
If you get pulled over keep your hands in plain sight, don’t make a sudden move, say yes sir and no sir, These are things every parent teaches and worries about.
Don’t be out walking alone at night, don’t wander into a neighborhood you don’t know, if you get stopped on the street see above.
Don’t cut through peoples yards, don’t, don’t.
Try not to act or look suspicious, in anyones mind.
I wonder who she imagines doesn’t have to have those conversations with their children
There is no question that one difference is that in some places all you have to be is black to be suspicious, but everywhere all of those other things apply to everyone.
CCDG, you might want to read Jesse Taylor’s story here. I certainly had my parents explain to me that I should be careful, treat the police with respect, etc, but nevertheless, my experience was totally different from Jesse’s. I had the privilege of growing up without fearing the police. Just like there are some restaurants that I can walk into and get served at while black friends of mine literally cannot, even when they’re better dressed than me.
I don’t know why it is so difficult to accept that even though life is tough for everyone, it can be tougher for some groups of people.
The other difference is that there’s no place in America where a white kid is going to end up dead on someone’s lawn and the person holding the gun is not going to be placed under arrest, questioned, and given a drug and alcohol screening.
I occasionally see references to a witness seeing Mr. Martin “on top of” or otherwise assaulting Mr. Zimmerman. Is there any substance to this claim?
(For the record, it seems unlikely, to me.)
“White kids get killed by cops and vigilantes, too.”
Name someone who has denied this.
Okay, now that you have failed to do so, here’s your mistake: you said people are mad that black kids get killed and white kids never get killed. However, what people are mad about is that black kids get killed more often – much more often. I don’t have numbers to back that up, so you are welcome to dispute me if you have numbers of your own.
It seems to me that there are two separate questions here.
First, was what Zimmerman did justifiable under any common sense definition of justice?
Second, was what he did a crime under Florida law?
For the first, I can see no way that it might be. You chase after someone, even though the police are telling you not to. You provoke a confrontation. The person you confront fails to just fold up instantly. So you kill him. And then, when the police find you standing over him with a gun, they accept the story that you felt threatened by a kid half your size, so they don’t even check to see if your story is true.
For the second, however, it seems like it just may be legal under Florida law. (Maybe McKinney can enlighten us on that point.) As I understand it, if you provoke a confrontation, or start a fight, you can then decide that you are if fear of your life from the person you attacked and shoot and kill them. There doesn’t have to be any reason (a view, or even just possession, of a weapon for example); all you have to say is “I was afraid” and you are off the hook.
Which probably says a lot about the Florida law in question. And why it is already being contested in another case in Florida.
Brett, to speak to your initial comment:
Suppose I am bigger, and a hundred pounds heavier, than you. You are going about your lawful concerns (I believe that is the legal phrase) but I come up to you and start a confrontation. I push you, you push back. I stumble/trip, and fall and hit my head. (Of course I had to stumble, because being much smaller there is otherwise no way you are going to cause a head wound unless you are using a weapon — which was nowhere in evidence.)
Or have you seen something that the rest of us have missed? Like police (or anybody else) producing a weapon with Zimmerman’s blood and hair on it. Or anything else that could account for the wound? Because I personally don’t see any way that a kid otherwise manages to wound someone that much bigger than himself.
George, this abc news link that has this
Witnesses told ABC News a fist fight broke out and at one point Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by more than 100 pounds, was on the ground and that Martin was on top.
Brown along with several other residents heard someone cry for help, just before hearing a gunshot. Police arrived 60 seconds later and the teen was quickly pronounced dead.
According to the police report, Zimmerman, who was armed with a handgun, was found bleeding from the nose and the back of the head, standing over Martin, who was unresponsive after being shot.
and this
But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.
I’m not sure if you would describe a bloody nose and bleeding from the back of the head ‘wounds’ as Brett does, unless it was caused by something wielded by Travyon, but that might be my own idiolect.
“Try not to act or look suspicious, in anyones mind.”
Maybe we should be reading Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man”, in addition to our Faulkner.
Some minds, too many times the self-appointed ones like the non-uniformed Zimmerman’s (it has been reported he was not wearing a uniform to identify himself as neighborhood watch captain) come fully pre-loaded with suspicions, without sensory input from the subject.
Throw in a weapon, some Barney Fife officiousness, two or three commas from the Second Amendment, and that motherf%cking c8cksucking grab-your-d*ck Stand Your Ground law, to go with the turn-key suspicions (who stood their ground in this case, anyhoo?) and here we are.
Which probably says a lot about the Florida law in question. And why it is already being contested in another case in Florida.
Exactly. Vigilante justice is really not justice at all.
We could play a game.
I could post a photo of me, Martin, and Zimmerman and the rest of you could vote on who “looks” the most suspicious.
So far as I can tell, there is pretty much no chance that Zimmerman’s murder of trayvon, under the facts as I’ve seen them, would be legal under Florida’s law.
Florida’s law is pretty close to the Beard v. United States (1895) federal common law understanding of self defense. The 1874 Statement of Crim Law on the subject is “A man may repel force by force in the defence of his person, habitation, or property, against any one or many who manifestly intend and endeavor by violence or surprise to commit a known felony on either. In such case he is not compelled to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he finds himself out of danger, and if in the conflict between them he happen to kill him, such killing is justifiable.”
Similarly “A man may repel force by force, in defence of his person, habitation or property, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a known felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and the like, upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from all danger; and if he kill him in so doing it is called justifiable self-defence; as, on the other hand, the killing by such felon of any person so lawfully defending himself will be murder. But a bare fear of any of these offences, however well grounded, as that another lies in wait to take away the party’s life, unaccompanied with any overt act indicative of such an intention, will not warrant in killing that other by way of prevention. There must be an actual danger at the time.”
That is pretty much a statement of law in a majority of states of the union over the past 200 years. A significant minority of states have a “duty to retreat” when attacked which narrows the self defense right. But contra the confused reporting that I’ve seen on the issue, that has never been the majority view of the common law or statutory law of the states in the US. My limited understanding of Florida is such that its law was in line with the majority “no duty to retreat” law until fairly recently. At some point the judiciary in Florida struck out to make “duty of retreat” necessary, and then the legislature tried to revert away from “duty of retreat” back to the majority state standard.
Now it is possible that the legislature overcorrected when removing the “duty of retreat”, but I haven’t seen anything which suggests that they dramatically expanded the concept of self defense past the majority “no retreat necessary” position (with the understanding that the majority of states allow you to shortly pursue to insure safety in the whole situation).
So far as I can tell, none of this has anything to do with the Trayvon case except for the fact that Zimmerman tried to use self-defense as an extremely transparent excuse, and the police essentially decided not to investigate the slaying of a black man.
The best accounts at the moment seem to indicate that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Trayvon for at least a half hour, and that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Even in the broadest reading of the “stand your ground” concept that I’ve seen anywhere, that still isn’t self defence except that if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman instead of the reverse, Trayvon may well have been covered.
But if that had happened, I’m relatively confident that the racist cops would have found a way to investigate at least a little bit harder.
“As I understand it, if you provoke a confrontation, or start a fight, you can then decide that you are if fear of your life from the person you attacked and shoot and kill them. There doesn’t have to be any reason (a view, or even just possession, of a weapon for example); all you have to say is “I was afraid” and you are off the hook.”
No. That isn’t right at all. The original illegal aggressor in a fight doesn’t get to claim self defense during the incident they start. Now will I say that there is no idiot judge anywhere or no stupid jury somewhere that hasn’t applied it that way? Of course not. I’ve seen idiot judges and stupid juries. But that doesn’t make it the general state of the law.
sebastian, thank you very much for that explanation. I am glad to see that I have misunderstood where Florida is on this.
That being the case, about all that can be said of the police conduct is: The spirit of “Bull” Conner is alive and well.
I am having a hard time understanding what all the hubbu is about in this case. It seems that the liberal clique wants to leap all over this and pronounce some kind of hate crime, to what end? Who know. Lib.s just like to idenitify victims of hate crimes as a hobby or something.
All the facts are not in. It’s way too early to make pronouncements of any type.
Zimmerman, BTW, is desribed as being Hispanic. So he’s not the typical white red neck that I’,e some libs imply that he is.
So, what do we call it when blacks murder blacks? We don’t seem to call it anything. How about if a black person murders a white — it does happen, you know? Are those racist occurrences, or simply pathetic and tragic murders?
What is the big deal with this case?
Kid, who happens to be black, strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling at an hour when same, dressed in a hoodie. Engages in an altercation with a neighborhood watch guy and gets shot dead.
How does it become the big political blimp that is has? Weird.
“The original illegal aggressor in a fight doesn’t get to claim self defense during the incident they start.”
That is simply wrong.
If I pick a fight with someone, think it’s going to be a tyical Saturday night fist fight, and some time soon after we start throwing the down my opponent whips out a gun or knife, I have every right then to draw my own weapon (or grab whatever is handing) and kill the guy.
The Florida law comes from ALEC’s model Castle Doctrine Act.
Folks remember ALEC, right?
Sanford also has a history.
Doctor Science,
Is there no level of repellent racist bullsh!t that deserves censure rather than polite disagreement?
A small town Neighborhood Watch vigilante way overstepped his bounds and in the very best case provoked a confrontation that ended in a boy getting killed.
IMO those are basically the salient facts of the matter.
But it’s also pretty clear to me that none of this – not Zimmerman’s obsessive tailing of Martin, not the confrontation, certainly not the shooting, and not the insane non-response on the part of the cops – would have played out as it did if Martin was not black.
IMVHO there is no way to factor the racial aspect out of this.
On the way home from the store to his father’s house with a package of Skittles and and iced tea, Trayvon Martin was stalked, confronted, and shot dead. And the cops declined to pursue the matter.
Why? Because he was a young black man.
So:
take the facts and explode them into a Jim Crow indictment of a whole society
I don’t see that any exploding is necessary.
My only difference of perspective from what I take to be Doctor S’s here is that I don’t think there is much about the case that is uniquely Southern.
The police response, yes. I find it hard to imagine the cops in most jurisdictions responding to a situation like this by saying, “Hey, he said he was defending himself, who are we to disagree?”.
But the basic difference in how black people are seen and treated, no, not so different.
So, when you say “whole society”, I see that encompassing more than just the American South.
Sebastian, thank you for your legal analysis of the “stand your ground” issue, I hope to God you are right.
Charles, are you referring to me? Is it now racist to presume a man innocent until proven guilty? Especially when there is testimony to support his side of the story (self defense)?
I will be perfectly content if Zimmerman goes on trial for homicide, and ends up spending a considerable period in prison. Whatever Martin did, Zimmerman began it.
That doesn’t change the fact that almost all accounts of this incident coming from opponents of the Florida law are systematically omitting details. Turning it into a better club with which to beat up the law’s advocates.
To read most accounts, you’d think Zimmerman walked up to Martin, and abruptly blew him away. Leaving the police letting him go totally inexplicable. As it has to be, for Zimmerman to be a proper indictment of the law.
THAT is what I’m complaining about.
“So, what do we call it when blacks murder blacks? We don’t seem to call it anything.”
a) People aren’t actually black or white; there are only either self-declared ethnic identifications or perceptions that people use to drop others into pseudoscientific categories that are based purely upon, huh, racism.
b) We call it “murder.”
“Kid, who happens to be black, strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling at an hour when same, dressed in a hoodie.”
Why shouldn’t he be strolling while African-American, or a kid, exactly?
“How does it become the big political blimp that is has? Weird.”
Yes, it’s almost as if history and contemporary racism exist.
It’s almost as if someone remembers Emmett Till, or the fact that more or less any “white” person in the South could get away with killing more or less any “black” person from the before the founding of the country right through at least the 1960s.
It’s almost as if some folks are aware of this because it affects their daily lives.
It doesn’t affect your life, to be sure. That’s called “privilege.”
Did it matter to Zimmerman that he viewed Martin as “black”? Did, in Zimmerman’s mind, Martin “just happen” to be “black”?
I’m not a mind-reader, and I don’t know what happened.
But what was it that made Martin suspicious?
“What is the big deal with this case?”
It vividly raises questions as to whether this was a racially motivated killing, and it raises questions as to whether racial or other prejudice tainted the Sanford police response.
Do we know for sure what happened, either way, yet? Not that I’m aware. Perhaps perceived race will turn out to be uninvolved, or more probably, there will be nothing resembling definitive truth one way or another, but anyone with the least familiarity with Jim Crow shouldn’t wonder why major questions wouldn’t be raised.
To read most accounts, you’d think Zimmerman walked up to Martin, and abruptly blew him away
Who is “you” referring to here? Because clearly nobody here or at your other haunt believes any such thing.
Can you link to even a single news account that says anything close to what you’re claiming here?
Zimmerman, BTW, is desribed as being Hispanic.
This may come as a shock to you, but Hispanics are white.
So he’s not the typical white red neck that I’,e some libs imply that he is.
Who is “some libs” referring to here? Names, please.
Kid, who happens to be black, strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling at an hour when same,
He shouldn’t be strolling near his father’s house during halftime of the NBA All-Star game?
dressed in a hoodie.
This was silly when Geraldo tried it and it’s silly now, JFTR.
“Why? Because he was a young black man.”
Huge, huge, assumption on your part. So much an assumption it is in the realm of pure fantasy. May very well have gone down exactly the same if it had been a young white man dressed in a hoody.
As far as the police response, they questioned Zimmerman and witnesses. A grand jury is being called. Zimmerman is not off the hook for anything.
BTW, the actual text of the appropriate section of the Florida statute reads:
Sebastian, not sure how/whether this affects your view.
This, by the way — Engages in an altercation with a neighborhood watch guy and gets shot dead. — which ignores away Zimmerman’s phone calls to 911, stalking the kid in his car, calling him a “f’ing coon” and saying that “these a-holes always get away with it,” pursuing him after being told by 911 not to do so, and getting out of the car for no good reason, is a far more egregious mischaracterization of events than anything Brett is claiming the Big Nasty Liberals have done.
Why, to read it, you’d think that Zimmerman was just minding his own business and Martin walked up out of the blue and beat him up.
Phil, did you read the links posted up above? Take, for instance, here’s a good summary from Think Progress. See any mention of Martin beating on Zimmerman? See any mention of Zimmerman’s injuries?
No. Zimmerman accosts Martin, then Martin’s dead. That’s what I’m talking about. I’ve read about this case at several lefty blogs, and until I looked up the details myself, that’s what I thought happened: Zimmerman walked up to Martin, and blew him away.
Because, you know, any mention of what happened between “accosted him” and “blew away” was carefully elided.
Not to forget that Martin called 911 too. Just a few minutes ago I also read that a witness had her statement ‘corrected’ by the police from hearing Martin calling for help into Zimmerman calling for help. Sounds eerily familiar to me.
Good to see you back, Gary.
” People aren’t actually black or white; there are only either self-declared ethnic identifications or perceptions that people use to drop others into pseudoscientific categories that are based purely upon, huh, racism.”
Well then, aren’t you a racist for pointing out that the dead guy was black? And then going on tho make big societal statements about why his blackness lead to his deadness?
“This may come as a shock to you, but Hispanics are white.”
Negative. Too far into bizarro alternative universe to even be worthy of the effort to explain why you are so wrong.
If I had to put put money on the ultimate diagnoses, I’d say that Zimmerman is probably a stupid, slob of a putz that shouldn’t be allowed to play with a squirt gun without adult supervision.
I’d also say that Trayvon probably handled the situation in a totally punkish manner and that led the idiot Zimmerman further down the road of wrong action. It should have been easy enough for Trayvon to stop and ask Zimmerman, once he noticed he was being followed, “Hi, my dad lives around here. My name is Trayvon. Can I help you with something? Is everything ok?” This, no doubt would have cause Zimmerman to ask a few more question, like what address, etc, but also to explain that he is neighborhood watch and is looking for for the good of the neighborhood. Trayvon could have then responded politely, “Great. Thanks for keeping us safe”. And I’m sure both parties would have parted feeling better about each other and, most importantly, both alive.
This clearly did not occur. And to blame it all on Zimmerman as a racist monster within an enclave of the similar fould beasts is ridiculuous and irresponsible at this stage of the game.
If you are truly interested in improving race relations in this country, then leaping to that kind of conclusion and joining Al Sharpton’s army is the last thing you should be doing.
“This may come as a shock to you, but Hispanics are white.”
Negative. Too far into bizarro alternative universe to even be worthy of the effort to explain why you are so wrong.
You . . . You know where Spain is, right? You know that “Latino” and “Hispanic” are not census categories, right?
What do you think Hispanics are?
You also know that a grand jury was only convened *because* of all the national attention, right?
This isn’t a coherent argument. As near as I can tell, you’re asserting that you have the right to use deadly force to protect your person from harm, but others do not. I.e., should you start an altercation with someone and subsequently commit assault consummated by battery upon their person, and they then seek to defend themself with a concealed (or opportunistically available) weapon against said assault, you now have the right to “defend” yourself with any weapon you can legally lay hands on, and when you kill them it’s “self defense”.
Remind me again what the glorious, much-vaunted point of being able to carry weapons for self defense is again? By your argument, it appears to be to allow others to legally kill you in “self defense” so long as they can provoke you to draw/unsheathe first w/o immediately killing them… While this has a quaint Old West à la Hollywood ring to it, I have a great deal of trouble believing that the law agrees with you. At the risk of incurring a Carnac penalty, I’m going to assert that the place that your reasoning and the law’s would diverge would be over whether a “typical Saturday night” assault consummated by battery is (or for that matter, should be) a criminal offense, or (legally) a threat to the victim’s person.
(Additionally, if a “typical Saturday fist fight” is not reasonable grounds to resort to lethal force to defend one’s person, as you have strongly implied, I’m more than a little curious how you square that circle with the notion that Zimmerman was in the clear shooting the unarmed Trayvon…)
strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling, at an hour when same — avedis
Just for reference, if a kid can’t walk to the neighborhood store, where, exactly, can he walk?
And between what hours, in your opinion, is it acceptable for a young man to be out strolling around?
Next time a teenager in a hooded sweatshirt walks by my house, can I shoot him?
“What do you think Hispanics are?”
A mix of indiginous people (Injuns and islanders) and Spanish conquerers.
Yes, Hispnaic is a category used in the cencus and other demographic data gathering programs. The Federal government of the United States has mandated that “in data collection and presentation, federal agencies are required to use a minimum of two ethnicities: ‘Hispanic or Latino’ and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’.”[13] The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”
I do not know why I even read your comments, Phil. every single little thing you say needs to be fact checked because you are either 1. inherently and pathologically dishonest or 2. incredibly misinformed on just about everything.
Indeed, envy, my very basic layman’s understanding of self defense law is that “being involved in the commission of a violent felony” — e.g., battery — precludes the use of a self defense claim.
“I’m more than a little curious how you square that circle with the notion that Zimmerman was in the clear shooting the unarmed Trayvon…)”
I don’t know the facts. Neither does anyone else at this point. I am merely objecting to all the instantaneous hyperbole from the usual suspects about this being a racially motivated killing.
Being a betting man, I’d say Zimmerman was not in the clear, if all the facts wer known. Sometimes I lose bets.
For all we know, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating the hell out of him. maybe pounding his head onto the ground (a common street fighting technique and potentially lethal). The fact that Trayvon was lighter weight than Zimmerman means nothing in a fight. Zimmerman looks like an out of shape slob. A younger fitter more experienced Trayvon could have easily gotten and advantage over him in a fist fight.
BTW. My understanding was Trayvon was short cutting through the gaited community. He actually had no business being there.
Also, too. The Republican legislator who led the effort to get the “stand your ground “law passed has publically stated that Zimmerman’s actions were not within the intent of the law. I’m really amazed that people are trying to rationalize Zimmerman’s behavior. Really. It’s just amazing to me.
I’m not acquainted with Zimmerman so I don’t know the extent to which the murder was motivaed by an assumption that black males are inherently dangerous. However, if you back race out of the story it’s clearly murder. Who would suggest other wise if a white guy shot the neighbor’s white teenage son for walking down a sidewalk in his parents’ neighborhood?
SO here’s my question for those who are ratioalizing the murder. WHould you be making excuses for Zimmmerman or tryig to blame the victim if the victim was white?
How about if the shooter was black and the victim white? Can black men shoot white teenagers with impunity?
Remember that Zimmerman called 911 and was told by the police to back off and he didn’t. If a black man was following a white kid, called the police to report walking down the sidewalk as suspicious behavior and was told to back off but didn’t, chased the white kid, got inot a fight with him and shot him, would they police just let the balck man go? Would anyone on this thread be arging that the kid shouldn’t ahve been walking down the sidewalk and shouldn’t have been wearing a hooded sweat shirt?
I’m about to take the dogs for a walk. Maybe I should not wear my hoodie.
You know, avedis, when I say something, I bloody well mean it, and what I said was that HISPANIC IS NOT A CENSUS CATEGORY, which it is not, as specifically noted both at the Census.gov website:
And on the census form itself:
So, again, I did not say the government did not collect demographic data on Hispanics. I said that Hispanic and Latino ARE NOT CENSUS CATEGORIES. Which they are not. So you can take your opinions on how honest and informed I am, and insert them, sideways, straight into your rectum, sans lube.
I do not know why I even read your comments, Phil. every single little thing you say needs to be fact checked because you are either 1. inherently and pathologically dishonest or 2. incredibly misinformed on just about everything.
avedis, stop it now, please. I know that there’s history here, but I’m directly asking you to stop it right now. If you don’t, I’m going to ask the fellow front pagers to agree that this was a clear warning. Your choice.
BTW. My understanding was Trayvon was short cutting through the gaited community. He actually had no business being there.
No, his father’s fiancé lived there. I’ll refrain from pointing out the obvious irony here.
And that went up right before Phil’s. Stop it now.
And Doc, do what you need to do to my comment, but I’m not going to be called a liar, particularly on a matter that I am clearly correct about, and certainly not by the likes of this person.
LJ, I read you loud and clear.
Related to more of the issue of policing and much less so to this exact incident is this; I post a quote from a US govt site””in data collection and presentation, federal agencies are required to use a minimum of two ethnicities: ‘Hispanic or Latino’ and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’.”[13] The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”
We have all sorts of stories wherein “hispanics” and “latinos” are discussed as being minorities up to and including discussions of how California is now a state where whites are minorities due, in large part, to the Hispanic influx.
Then we have basic reality; like I know and count as friends hispnaics from Mexico and Puerto Rico and, I assure you, that these people don’t consider themselves “white” at all.
Yet someone insistes on arguing non-salient points – like in the last census….blah blah blah……..as if that somehow partially correct information is making a relevant point given the rest of the whole wide world where hispanic is not consider a white person from spain.
I already know your answer – ignore it if it bothers you. And that is good advice, of course.
It does, however, lower the quality of discussion around here to the point where words mean nothing and it is an extremely insidious form of trolling. And as I noted to Russell, I think on a recent thread, when was the last time anyone saud to anyone else, “good point, that really changed my outlook?” As Russell noted, too damn rarely if at all. All we get is further hair splitting in endless attempts to “win” an argument as opposed to gain a better understanding of our world and each other. Not everyone here is like that all the time. Some are like that most of the time. However, I recognize that it’s your blog to do what you want with.
Avedis:
This is not due to police choice. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. There was no grand jury called by prosecution, and little police investigation beyond asking leading questions.
Here’s a timeline.
Claiming the police handled things fine doesn’t fly, whatever the truth of what happened is.
Avedis:
You’re not merely objecting to instantaneous hyperbole (by unnamed people).
What you wrote:
This is not “merely objecting” to other people’s hypotheticals or conclusions: you’re leaping in with your own as much as most folks.
It’s not really hard to check facts on something like this.
Of course, there’s no reason for dark-skinned folks to be more concerned about how their children are treated by police, nor do hate crimes happen today.
Avedis:
No. Quote the words in which I pointed that out.
Regardless, it’s not racist to talk about how people deal with perceived “race.” It’s racist to believe there are actual “black” and “white” “races.” It’s not racist to discuss the fact that many people are deluded into thinking otherwise, nor racist to discuss ethnic self-identification, nor racist to discuss how people deal with perceived “race.”
The problem, DuBois famously said of the 20th century is the problem of the color line. It was also so of the 19th century. It’s still a problem of the 21st century. Discussing racism isn’t, it turns out, racist.
Again, please quote where I made any statement at all about how “his blackness lead to his deadness.”
What I wrote was an answer to your query:
Perhaps you’ve confused my responses with someone else’s.
Brett, there’s no situation in which I assault someone and then shoot him in which I can claim “self defense,” even if in the unlikely event that I ended up on the losing end of the assault that I started. The only way Zimmerman acts like he does is if he’s sure that Martin is not armed, isn’t a danger, and isn’t a physical threat. When Zimmerman, acting in manner indistinguishable from that of a violent sexual predator, spooks Martin, Zimmerman feels threatened, and then shoots.
My understanding was Trayvon was short cutting through the gaited community. He actually had no business being there.
I am both worried and upset at the though of what is being written in the dishonest, hate-filled sorts of right-wing email forwards that are now being passed around Rush-listening doofuses across the country about the Martin shooting that you are apparently basing your information on.
I think you should add to your timeline a very important fact–in the sense that it shows how little the police cared about the case.
They didn’t identify the body for three days, despite having access to a cell phone that had a conversation with Travyon’s girlfriend mere minutes before the killing, and therefore access to someone who could identify him.
When I first read that, I figured it couldn’t be right, or that he was killed on a Friday and they had trouble getting access to necessary records over the weekend.
But no, he was killed on a Sunday and they ignored his phone on a Monday and Tuesday.
Since “whiteness” basically doesn’t exist, it’s hardly surprising that who is or isn’t considered a member of this arbitrary social construct has shifted many times since this nonsense was invented.
Jews, Irish, Italians, and many others weren’t considered “white” and then they were, but it all depends where and by who, because all this stuff is socially constructed pseudo-science.
Of course, you’ve only had to have a drop of “non-white” “blood” to be transformed from “white” to “non-white”/Other. Oddly, there has never been a mirror construct where a drop of “white” “blood” transforms you into being “white.”
Why do you think that is, Avedis? Brett?
(Suggestion: it’s possible that the history of dark-skinned folks and light-skinned folks in America are not actually mirrors of each other.)
If Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman, by shooting or any other method, is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Zimmerman would be considered, by the media and everyone else, to be “white?” And would anybody currently posting here be saying, “No, no, he’s Latino?”
Phil, thanks for getting the statute. It exactly confirms what I wrote above, and in fact almost exactly conforms with the federal common law on self defense and the majority position of the individual states. In fact, having it read it now, I honestly think it is an enormous distraction from the real problems in this case, it is not atypical at all. It hits exactly the points I would expect.
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Note especially death or great bodily harm or forcible felony. That last term is a term of art meaning a felony that requires the use or threat of physical force or violence. I.e. NOT trespassing or embezzlement, or drug trafficking.
avedis,
I already know your answer – ignore it if it bothers you.
I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but I’m assuming that you are addressing me and not Phil, but there was no question above that, so I’m not sure what question the answer you assume I have is for. I do know that you have violated the posting rules, specifically
Be reasonably civil.
and
Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.
The portion of your comment I quoted broke both of those rules.
I will be perfectly content if Zimmerman goes on trial for homicide, and ends up spending a considerable period in prison. Whatever Martin did, Zimmerman began it.
Works for me. Thank you Brett.
I’m not even going to get into the 2nd amendment aspects of this, because I don’t think it has much to do with it.
If Seb’s reading of the FL law is correct, Zimmerman has no leg to stand on. IMO correctly.
If Seb’s reading is not correct, IMVHO the FL law sucks. But I don’t live in FL, so there’s not a whole lot I can do about that.
In any case, I don’t see that the FL law has bugger-all to do with the 2nd Amendment.
I’m really amazed that people are trying to rationalize Zimmerman’s behavior. Really. It’s just amazing to me.
Me too. It is, to me, un-f**king-believable.
Kid, who happens to be black, strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling at an hour when same, dressed in a hoodie.
Where was he strolling?
What time was it?
Do you know? The information is readily available. Perhaps you should find out before favoring us with your point of view.
My understanding was Trayvon was short cutting through the gaited community.
His father was there visiting his fiancee, Martin was there visiting his father.
He was on his way back to where he was staying, *in the freaking community*, when Zimmerman decided he was some kind of intruder.
Net/net, you are lacking some basic information. Perhaps you would like to do some homework before weighing in further.
May very well have gone down exactly the same if it had been a young white man dressed in a hoody.
And monkeys might fly out of my @ss.
If you disagree, perhaps you can share an example of a white kid wearing a hoodie being tailed, confronted, and killed by a neighborhood watch dude.
As far as I can tell, the facts of the matter here are:
1. Zimmerman took his “neighborhood watch” responsibilities about 1,000 miles past the boundaries of common sense.
2. A black kid wearing a hoodie is instantly suspect, anytime and anyplace. For that matter, a black kid not wearing a hoodie is suspect, in most times and places outside of black neighborhoods.
If you’re curious about how the racial thing plays into this, I will give you a clue and tell you that it’s somewhere under number 2. The key word here is “black”.
They didn’t identify the body for three days
See, if it was my kid who laid in a morgue for three days before anybody had the simple decency to due the most basic amount of due diligence to find out *who the hell he was*, I’d be more than halfway to burning that MF’ing police station down.
People say that blacks are always trying to play the victim, and are looking for too much from society.
I say we should all give thanks that black people don’t cut our throats while we sleep in our beds at night.
Different strokes, I guess.
I’m going to ask the fellow front pagers to agree that this was a clear warning.
I agree.
One of the saddest parts of all this, is the White House using this kid’s death to fire up its base.
“Jose Chung”
Mmm-hmm.
strolling around where kids shouldn’t be strolling
Kids shouldn’t be strolling in a residential neighborhood?
at an hour when same
7:15 at night?
dressed in a hoodie.
Like Like on of these threatening outfits?
What is wrong with you, avedis? It’s not particularly civil to advocate in favor of unnecessary violence, nor is it civil to dishonestly drag an innocent victim’s name through the mud in service of that goal. Learn to act like a civilized human being if you want to be accorded respect in public society, not a violence-loving barbarian.
Yeah, I defended avedis, but I’m tired. This is a real kid, and I know some 17-year-olds. This is our kid.
Look. That the kid, a real 17 year old kid named Trayvon, was killed, is a tragedy.
I AM NOT excusing Zimmerman. His actions are clearly not clean. He looks like an idiot that shouldn’t be permitted to own a BB gun.
That said, this kind of sh!t happens every day. White on white, balck on white, black on black, white on black, Asian on Middle Eastern, etc, etc, etc.
No one here knows this was racially motivated. No one. Yet is is being turned into a huge racially based circus. There are a lot of assumptions being made. I see that as wrong and harmful for several reasons.
Furthermore, sad as it is that he is dead, we do not know if there were mitigating factors contributed by Trayvon. There are some witness accounts, unoffcial and contradictory, that indicate Trayvon may well have contributed to his own demise.
Some people here are acting like they are just know how it all went went down. Wow. maybe you should be hiring yourselves out as psychic investigators, judges, juries and executioners.
I reserve judgement until the facts are in.
But mostly I object to the whole racial meme. This happens and no one says anything about about racism:
case from Flint Michigan is a classic example of how the media is biased when reporting crimes based on race. This horrendous crime included six black residents of Flint who beat and shot three Oakland County teenagers – killing one. The victims where White.
According to Alan Lessig of The Detroit News: The six accused men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 23 — were arraigned on charges of murder, kidnapping and assault in the attack on two boys and a girl who hopped a northbound train in Highland Township, and got off in the wrong neighborhood.
Michael Carter, 14, of Highland Circulation Township, died from a gunshot to the head in the attack. His 14-year-old girlfriend from Highland was beaten, forced to perform a sex act and shot in the face. Carter’s longtime friend, Dustin Kaiser, 15, of Davisburg was shot in the back of the head. He was in fair condition in a Flint hospital.
According to the chilling statements given to police by some of the suspects, the three were picked at random as robbery victims. Here is how authorities say the crime occurred: The group of six young males led the Oakland County youths to Bonner Park on the pretense of getting them to a phone. Once in a wooded area of the unlit park, Carter and Kaiser were knocked to the ground, beaten and punched. The girl was dragged up a hill near a swing set, where she was pistol-whipped, her pants and underwear stripped off. She was forced to perform a sex act on one of the attackers.
Twice, she escaped, only to be caught and dragged back to the scene. Her friends were nearby, being held to the ground by Darling, who was wielding a sawed-off shotgun. The girl then was dragged down the hill to where her male friends were splayed in the tall grass. Tyrone Reyes held a .22 caliber handgun to the head of one of the boys. Another attacker held a shotgun to the girl.
“Do it!” someone yelled behind Tyrone Reyes. He fired into the head of one of the boys. Darling pulled the trigger on the shotgun with it aimed at the girl, but the gun jammed. Tyrone Reyes then fired two more shots, one into the head of the other boy, and one into the face of the girl.
The three were left for dead, but Kaiser and the girl struggled out of the park. Police received an anonymous tip that led them to one of the suspects. The statement of that suspect led them to the others. A .22-caliber handgun and a sawed-off shotgun investigators believe were used in the attack were found in the home of one of the suspects. (End of story)
Could you imagine the out-cry from the media and all of the so-called ‘human rights groups’ if four Black youths innocently found themselves in the wrong part of Mississippi, only to have the same treatment by a group of White youths? If that was the case, you would have heard of this story, but since the suspects are Black, and the victims are White, the media ignores the race issue.
The six accused men and boys ranging in age from 16 to 23 — were arraigned on charges of murder
Yeah, see, that’s the part that’s different.
Note the bolds in case it’s still not clear.
no date and lifted in toto from this webpage
http://www.freedomsite.org/colum/lockhart4.html
(no link cause I’d prefer not to give the site traffic)
No link to any report or a date given. The reporter cited, Alan Lessig, is actually a photojournalist for the cited Detroit News from 1993 to 2002, covering the sports beat, so it seems unlikely he would be covering a crime story, though his linkedin profile does say he covered ‘national and international news’ but not local news.
Perhaps the media didn’t report it because it didn’t happen…
How many false, misleading, and obtuse posts does Avedis have to make before you notice that he’s a troll?
He degrades every conversation he participates in. I cannot recall a single post of his that reflected a sincere or interesting thought. We’re not in the U.S. Congress here, you know. Ban him.
“What is wrong with you, avedis”
Oh, I don’t know, been around in the real for a while?
I think if at least some people here were honest they would admit that an unknown youth with a hoody pulled over his head obscuring his face walking through their neighborhood would be a cause to keep an eye out.
I don’t know what has been on in the neighborhood. Do You? has there been gang violence? Break ins? Vandalism?
As I said, a simple conversation could have probably caused the whole tragedy to be avoided.
“Hey man, you lost?”
“No man, Just went to the store and heading back to my old man’s old lady’s hous”
“Yeah? Where’s that?”
“2487 Calle del Moco Seco”
“Yeah? What’s the home owner’s name?”
“Ms Mary Jones”
Confrontation ended.
But there are a lot of ways that conversation could also go that would result in a fight and, ultimately a shooting. And most of those things that would be said would have come from Trayvon.
On the other hand, it is possible that Zimmerman was just a homicidal maniac that would have shot someone that night regardless.
And the poor performance of the police is not evidence of racism either. That’s just police doing their usual crappy minimal effort at best.
Perhaps the media didn’t report it because it didn’t happen…
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-08-05/news/9708050027_1_execution-style-teens-execution-attempt
Or maybe it did happen. Chicago Tribune link to same case.
How many false or misleading posts have I made?
I think if at least some people here were honest they would admit that an unknown youth with a hoody pulled over his head obscuring his face walking through their neighborhood would be a cause to keep an eye out.
I know youths who walk around with hoodies pulled over their heads. They do it all the time for whatever reason. They do it because they got a bad haircut. They do it because they’re cold. WTF? Don’t you know any kids? This is what kids do!
Yeah, Julian. You’re right. He’s a troll. I’m not saying anymore in this thread. The kid was a kid walking around like kids walk. If they do a thorough investigation and they find something, whatever. It seems to me like some kid was shot for being a kid.
And that’s because of gun freaks. I hold my breath and avert my eyes because I’ve lost the battle on guns. But the gun freaks who decide they own the country decide to shoot kids and then it’s over for a lot of young lives. “Culture of life” my ass.
How many false or misleading posts have I made?
I’m sorry, but anyone who sees Zimmerman’s actions as anything other than a violent predator, aping the behavior of a sexual predator, is deluding himself. avedis is merely cribbing of the email forwards and rhetoric of what is a very hateful and violent right-wing subculture which is trying to whip their followers up into a violent frenzy.
Those familiar with right wingers and their blogs know well that they are constantly warning that violent roving gangs of black youth are attacking them right and left. This culture of belief is being deliberately cultivated to create a culture of hate and violence within conservative subcultures. Zimmerman, as far as we can tell, was just acting on the belief systems cultivated by Republican activists.
Avendis, it was raining at the time. Does that alter your opinion about the appropriateness of wearing a hoodie?
Please answer directly.
I’m quite serious.
avedis, you cut and pasted from a site that gives no verification. That the incident happened doesn’t really address all the detail that you claim is true. For the Zimmerman case, you claim
“I don’t know the facts. Neither does anyone else at this point. I am merely objecting to all the instantaneous hyperbole from the usual suspects about this being a racially motivated killing.”
Yet you give us a cut and paste job from what appears to be a RW site that has no verification. Only when called on it, do you then give the Chicago Tribune link that gives none of those details. Strangely enough, the Trib says 4 of the 6 were arraigned, so already, it sounds like your cut and paste is not accurate. This link then says that only two of the 6 were found guilty and they killed 3 boys. This suggests that the addition of the girl was one of those details inserted to get a bit of miscegenation concerns in there, so if any site is being racist, it is the site you cut and pasted from.
But setting that aside, is it because it was black kids killing white kids that you think we shouldn’t demand the same level of detail that you demand in regards to Zimmerman? Don’t you think you are being hypocritical?
First, I’ve already stated that zimmerman is a disgrace to the gene pool, clearly.
There are neighborhoods where a kid, especially a black kid, in a hoody would raise suspicions. Not that the kid should be shot. But that he would be watched.
Heck, there are neigborhoods where *I* have been tailed and asked why I’m there, what I’m doing, etc. These situations are usually easily brought to a peaceful conclusion via polite respectful response (even if your inclination is to tell the bastard to go f himself). I think Trayvon might have not used the polite approach.
I’ve already said zimmerman at best screwed up massively. At worst he was a rambo wannabe looking for excuse to kill someone.
I don’t see where this becomes a racial killing let alone an indictedment of the whole county or state as one big continuation of Jim Crow. This seems to be what a lot of folks here want it to be and it just isn’t. At least not given what is known at this point.
And yes, i was wrong about the time of night and the reason for his being there. I just read the first couple articles that came up that weren’t obviously lefty propaganda sites. I got duped by rightwing propaganda. This time. So there’s one. Julian made it sound as if all I do is come here and post falsehoods, month after month.
Still, that doesn’t change the fact that there is much unknown at this point concerning this case. Such as, “Engages in an altercation (no, the guy attacked Trayvon, as far as we could tell)” Eye witness accounts conflict. It is not known.
So I am troll because i disagree with your liberal newsletter mass mailings on the topic. I don’t read rightwing sites, unless by accident. Those guys are crazier than you guys.
Tyro, why don’t you take a nice stroll through south Chicago, or about 75% of Detroit or Compton and then come back and talk about roving gangs of black youths.
“This happens and no one says anything about about racism”
Interestingly, a moment’s googling indicates that only one person on the entire public internet has used the phrasing you did, and Alan Lessig isn’t a reporter.
If you can supply a link to his story, please do so.
I could, save that I don’t know which “so-called ‘human rights groups'” don’t deserve to be so called. Which, specifically?
I think it’s more likely that the 21st century media isn’t writing about a case from 1997 that did, in fact, get coverage for several years.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of racial motivation; there seems to have been a lot of “white” folks yelling that there must have been. You know, because. Why? just because. There must have been.
If this is wrong, by all means, present the evidence and cites.
I grew up in NYC; I currently live in the Bay Area. It’s impossible to go outside without seeing unknown youths with hoodies walking through the neighborhoods.
I, myself, frequently go out in a hoodie, and even look at houses. I’ve even paused and stared at houses, or their gardens, or trees.
Ditto in a suburban neighborhood in Raleigh, NC, where I saw very few dark-skinned folk walking around.
Curiously, though, no one found this light-skinned guy threatening or likely to be a burglar.
“….we shouldn’t demand the same level of detail….”
I didn’t take the time to cut, paste and cite properly because the point wasn’t the case itself. The point is that whites are killed by blacks all the time and no where does the media get riled up and refer to these killings as hate crimes aor racially motivated.
there is your hypocrisey.
I only very quickly located and cut and pasted the case because, as things go around here, someone was likely to ask me to prove to blacks actually kill whites.
An article in the Chicago Tribune certainly goes a long way towards demonstrating that the media didn’t report it. Here’s another example of the media not reporting it.
And another, another, another, would you like a few dozen more?
I note that none of the stories I’ve yet read supports the claim that the attackers were racially motivated. What I did find is that groups like Stormfront, and other neo-Nazis, have posted many such assertions.
This was perhaps not the best example you could find of how awfully “white” folks in America in the 21st century are being treated by the oppressive ruling hand of the non-white folks.
gary, and I live in places where certain colors were banned in many public places, like no wearing on blue or red in the mall. Certain sports team logos were banned. Out on the street these things could get you profiled by cops or get you shot by people wearing a different color or logo. I’ve been places wear a military haircut or uniform would get you profiled by police.
It all depends on where you are and the local situation.
Again. We don’t knwo the facts in this case, the context.
“I note that none of the stories I’ve yet read supports the claim that the attackers were racially motivated.”
Aha!!!!! The light goes on for gary! Outstanding!
The point never was that it didn’t make the media. The point was that it was not considered racially motivated. Just as it almost never is when blacks kill whites.
But Zimmerman was racially motivated because he is white and killed a black?
Avedis:
You base this on which known fact?
Remember: “I reserve judgement until the facts are in.”
What fact, specifically, leads you to “think Trayvon might not have used the polite approach”?
“There are a lot of assumptions being made. I see that as wrong and harmful for several reasons.”
Me, too.
I do believe that’s what you object to. You are objecting to nameless people allegedly leaping to conclusions — and obviously people all over do that, but who you are referring to in this thread, you don’t say — but don’t object to speculating about who did what when you yourself speculate.
Indeed.
I also don’t think you’re particularly more of a troll than many folks. I think you waver between trying to honestly express your own views in reasonably polite fashion and frequently losing control of your temper and language to some degree. I also think that a number of your opinions are, at times, genuinely offensive to many folks for reasons you genuinely don’t understand.
I’m offended by some of the things you say at times, but I don’t think you, overall, write in bad faith.
Avendis, I think a little focus is in order.
The problem isn’t that Zimmerman killing Trayvon is some sort of racial indictment of the whole US or whatever.
A systemic problem is revealed however, when you notice that the police didn’t bother to investigate a transparently problematic (and I think I’m being kind there) claim of self defense. Now we can argue about how broad of a systemic problem it is if you like. But can we at least agree that it is suggestive of a systemic problem in that particular police department? This isn’t a hard case where the police had no idea who the shooter was, or where the crime happened or who might be witnesses. But they still didn’t bother. Even very very generous readings of that have to stretch really really hard to interpret that as mere negligence, right?
S, Police are frequently sloppy. Frequently systemicly corrupt, violent and sloppy. I think this is endemic to police every where; not just that particular jurisdiction.
As I’ve said before, I am no lawyer and I’m not going to pretend to know the law. My crude understanding is they need probable cause to make an arrest. They were presented with zimmerman with facial and head wounds and a statement of self defense. I don’t think they can do much until eye witness and or forensic evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Sometimes I watch those true crime shows on tv. There are cases where a detective’s instincts tells him it was murder, not an accident or some such and, as the viewer of the story, I have to agree with the suspicions, and it is not until years later that sufficient evidence comes out that allows a solid arrest to be made.
In this case I think witnesses were questioned, evidence was logged, but there was nothing conclusive enough to initiate an arrest.
The whole thing stinks. I sympathize with anyone who senses a need for justice; to some how correct this. That said, it might all just be a tragic alignment of bad mojo. A wannabe cop with a gun, but without the training or mentality to be safely carying it. A kid who may have reacted unwisely to the stupid wannabe’s unnecessarily aggressive “patrolling” and , ultimately, a shooting that barely falls within the letter of law concerning self defense even though, in a better world, would not have happened at all.
If a bad alignment of bad stars then we need to just move on. If something more sinister, then justice needs to be served and lessons learned to prevent it from happening again.
So I am with you. However, I don’t know what was involved in the investigation of the self defense claim. I’ve read a few articles now. Right wing, left wing and the wiki (which seemed kind of balanced).
Some say the grand jury was pushed by the politicizing of the event. Others say it was coming any how. I guess, we will soon know what the police did or did not do concerning forensics and eye witness testimony. It will all come out now.
If that same incident happened where I lived (and the victim could have hispanic just as well as black – up here they don’t consider hispanics white like they apparently do in Cleveland), I think there is a good chance the police would sweep it under the rug. So, yeah, it is entirely possible that it is a sloppy corrupt racist police dept. down there in Florida.
I don’t know. And I am not going to scream racism or conspiracy until more facts come out. Again sometimes bad sh!t just happens.
Racism is a huge problem in this country. I am frequently saddened when, as I get to know someone and we have a few drinks and they assume I’m their kind of good ol boy, the racism starts; the jokes, the meanness. I won’t stand for it. That said, it isn’t just a white problem. Blacks are just as racist, as are Hispanics (the ones that don’t consider themselves white, LOL), Indians, even Asians.
This country needs to have honest discussions about racism and it can’t be all about the evil white man and the poor brown victims. It’s a mutli way street. I digress. Sorry.
@avedis:
So I am troll because i disagree with your liberal newsletter mass mailings on the topic. I don’t read rightwing sites, unless by accident. Those guys are crazier than you guys.
Point of cultural order: unlike the rightward half of the American political spectrum, liberals send out, forward, or subscribe to mass mailings. Our online political discussion and information-sharing tends to happen on blogs.
(Actually, given the conservative email forwards I’ve read, I’m glad we don’t. Mass mailings seem to facilitate all manner of weird echo-chamber behaviors. And you can’t refute, disagree or query the way one can—and you are doing right now—on blogs.)
Likewise with talk radio: I often find that conservatives tend to assume symmetry between the ways the two sides disseminate and discuss political views. Ain’t so.
…few liberals send out, forward or subscribe to mass mailings.
Previewed it and everything. Urgh.
Sounds like the status of women today.
Regardless of race, there is one very large issue here: the social status of the perpetrator. I live in Finland, and even here, one of the most homogeneous developed countries in the world, you can get mugged and even killed if you happen to go to a wrong neighbourhood and have back luck. But there is one thing that is sure: whoever it is that commits the crime, he’s bound to be already at the lowest stratum of our society.
What makes this case exceptional is that the perpetrator was not a low-life, but a nominally upstanding citizen: a middle-aged property-owner. This means that the deed carries a certain social stamp of approval. Thus, if it had been a gang of white youths killing Mr. Martin, it might have been a racist crime, but in any case, it would have been run-of-the mill street violence. If it had been Mr. Martin killing Mr. Zimmerman, it would have been routine violence. The perpetrators would be charged with murder and locked away. But a middle-aged property-owner killing a youth and getting away with it is a man-bites-a-dog-event.
(Actually, I suspect that one of the reasons for Mr. Zimmerman’s vigilantism has been the fact that as a hispanic and with certain criminal background, he is already at the margin of acceptability in his neighbourhood, especially if he has had financial problems also. Being a vigilante is a way to increase one’s social standing. If you are already secure, you don’t do it.)
Ironic that you should be on the wrong side of this, avedis, considering Travyon actually had three interacting characteristics that left him a victim:
* Being black
* Being young
* Being male.
The latter is something I thought you of all people would be a little smarter about.
Try switching these three attributes one by one, and imagine the course of events. Can you imagine it with a young white man in a hoodie? Yes – not as likely by far, but still plausible. An older black man? Yes – still not very expected, but still plausible. A young black woman? I’m pretty confident the hypothetical Ms. Martin would have been left alone – or at least left alive.
It’s gradually becoming more accepted that even if you have a fear of black people, in the presence of a random black person you aren’t entitled to act as if that fear was justified. Nor can you expect or demand that black people take special precautions to avoid arousing your fear (although they do).
However, for the fear of men, and young men in particular, this idea has not caught on. If you demand that young people not wear hoodies, that’s not too controversial. And of course a good man crosses over to the other side if he happens to be walking behind someone late at night, to respect the other’s fear that he might be a mugger or worse.
It is racism. That should not be denied or downplayed. But it is also the hatred and fear of the young man, the seriousness of which isn’t appreciated by society like racism is.
Look, here is how avedis began his participation on this thread:
I am having a hard time understanding what all the hubbu is about in this case. It seems that the liberal clique wants to leap all over this and pronounce some kind of hate crime, to what end? Who know. Lib.s just like to idenitify victims of hate crimes as a hobby or something.
He then proceeded to demonstrate his profound and total ignorance of even the most basic facts about the case.
If anyone is leaping to conclusions about other folks’ intentions in this thread, it is avedis.
And frankly, IMVHO that dynamic is typical of his participation here. We are all a bunch of liberal candy-@sses with our heads up our butts, and he is here to enlighten us with his perspective from the Real World.
It’s freaking obnoxious, and he disrupts every thread he participates in.
avedis, if you have something constructive to say, do so. If your contribution is to b*tch about what a bunch of knee-jerk liberals we all are, and then get all poor-me when folks call you on it, go the f**k away, please.
If you are unable to restrain your impulse to be an obnoxious @ss every time something pushes your “a-hole button”, as you put it, then you’re going to wear your welcome out.
Which is, in fact, what is happening. Just a heads up for you.
So – why is it that people see race as a factor in this case? Allow me to spell it out.
It’s an order of magnitude more likely that a young black man will be hassled for walking down the street than that a young white man will.
The likelihood that cops would respond to the killing of a young white man by saying “Oh, you were defending yourself? No problem.” No charges, no investigation, nothing. Not very likely
The chance that a young white man would lay in a morgue for three days without anybody picking up his damned phone to see who the hell he was, likewise vanishingly small.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to be a freaking klansman for there to be a profound racial aspect to the story. All that is needed is for the story to play out differently for a young black man than it would have for a young white man.
Zimmerman is just drinking the same racist kool-aid, and breathing the same racist air, as all of the rest of us. He combined his with a weird dose of wish-I-was-a-real-cop and now Martin is dead.
If Martin was white, he’d most likely be alive. That’s why it’s a race thing.
Tyro, why don’t you take a nice stroll through south Chicago, or about 75% of Detroit or Compton and then come back and talk about roving gangs of black youths.
First of all, Compton is almost 2/3rds Latino. Second of all, Compton, like most of the US, has seen a steady decline of crime, particularly violent crime. By contrast, the paranoia and fear of being attacked by African American youths has skyrockets among rightwingers. This is not a coincidence or a statistical blip– it is due to a specific move on the part of the right to whip up racial fear because it serves their political and ideological purposes (along with serving the personal prejudices and feeding the ignorance of the rank-and-file).
And neighborhood watch guy is not even arrested. Is walking around free, charged with no crime. And the police chief, when called on this, almost immediately starts whining about how everyone is picking on him because he’s a white cop. And Fox affiliates are now playing up the angle that because somebody saw these two guys fighting, it makes perfect sense to let the shooter walk without being charged.
That’s how you get a big political blimp.
And all the facts will never be in, because the police dropped the ball on the investigation.
To me, this case is primarily about police misconduct. I don’t know whether George Zimmerman is a racist in his heart, and I don’t know all the details of what he did or what Trayvon Martin did.
But I do think this obviously deserves to be hashed out in court, with lawyers and sworn testimony and the whole nine yards, and the the fact that the police didn’t even pursue the case has ugly implications of its own.
The supposed revelations that Brett mentioned, as far as I can tell, do nothing to suggest that Martin somehow initiated an attack on Zimmerman out of the blue, armed with his iced-tea bottle and his bag of Skittles, after Zimmerman expressed eagerness to go after him, and indeed the idea that he did is fairly implausible. Things on that level of implausibility do happen in the world, but this is not what a cop should initially assume when deciding whether to arrest somebody.
I also think the theory “well, the kid just shouldn’t have been walking around there in a hoodie while being black” establishes a kind of killer’s veto on racial integration that we should not have in our society, as I thought was established in lynching cases decades ago.
All the facts are not in. I will ignore many of those that are. I will make a bunch of my own assumptions, while chiding others for doing so, whether or not they actually are doing so and without identifying them, other than by a contrived political-group affiliation. I will ignore history where it suits me. I will construct strawman after strawman, rather than responding to what people actually have written. Perhaps I will do some or all of these things without being self-aware enough to realize it. Who can tell?
What HSH said.
Granted avedis can be really really rude, but his last comment wasn’t. He does change his miind and he does move his position. Isn’t that the point of a coversation like wehave here? For people to disagee, learn and amybe change their minds? So while I wish people (including me)would not lose their heads and their manners in the heat of discussion, I also value disagreement and especially value people who can learn and grow since that’s a rare quality.
I guess I see avdis as a vistor from another reality who can be hostile to the natives but also is here to learn their mores which is a good thing.
I mean he doesn’t seem to show up just to sneer and run. He sticks around. People who do that-stick around-are there for the conversation, because they want to communicate. Sometimes that requires some learning in HOW to communicate.
So …well, FWIW.
(and the victim could have hispanic just as well as black – up here they don’t consider hispanics white like they apparently do in Cleveland)
I’m guessing Phil’s point was that hispanics can be white, according to how “we” categorize race, rather than that all hispanics are (considered) white.
Not that it really matters much, since the same situation involving the killing of a hispanic youth would have been just as problematic, though the historical context would be somewhat different. But I think all the counterfactuals about who would have reacted how in this or that situation fail to address the merits of the case – the one that actually happened and about which we do know some very problematic things – are a distraction.
Even if “liberals” or whoever fail to make a big deal out of equally bad situations, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong about this situation. And there are lots and lots of variables that go into what case gets a lot of attention, as opposed to another, that have nothing to do with bad faith on the part of the people who notice or protest the injustice they see, whether it appears to be selective or not.
This thing wouldn’t have been half the firestorm it has become if the police had done their jobs properly in the first place. This has triggered such outrage because the cops uncritically accepted Zimmerman’s story and apparently didn’t see the need to do an actual investigation (note: does not include telling a witness whose story didn’t match Zimmerman’s that she was wrong). Anyone who has actually read up on the facts (and, as Brett has noted, this includes the witness who says he saw Martin besting Zimmerman in a fight) knows the police acted poorly. Letting Martin’s body sit unidentified for three days (but making sure to blood test it for drugs!)?!
There’s your outrage. And yes, race has something to do with it – a lot of people simply assume that young black male = suspicious character… probably a criminal. Zimmerman was one who thought that way. He is FAR from alone. Add in his yearning to be the great neighborhood protector and his gun (note: not accusing the gun of anything but enabling Zimmerman) and you get a dead Trayvon Martin.
My reconstruction of events is basically this: Zimmerman sees Martin walking. He finds this suspicious, because… come on, we all know why. Black kid, hoodie… these aholes always get away! Anyway, Zimmerman stalks Martin, calls 9-1-1, pursues Martin even though the operator says he doesn’t need to do that, confronts Martin (Zimmerman: what are you doing here? Martin: why are you following me?), and there is a fight. We do not know and likely will never know who started the physical fight. I suspect it might have been Martin, and it does appear he gained the upper hand. Of course, if an ahole like Zimmerman chased you down and (speculation by me here!) tried to block your escape, maybe you’d fight too. I dunno. Zimmerman, losing the fight, shoots and kills Martin.
That’s my best guess.
I’ve been thinking about Trayvon.
This tragedy is a lesson, I think, for everyone who thought we were in a post-racial era. It’s easy if one is not in the line of fire to think the shooting has stopped.
It’s easy to thik, “I’m not shooting, no one I know is shooting, therefore the shooting is not happening. People are dying of something else, because the race war is over.”
I’m female, obviously. Part of being female is to live with the possibility of being raped and murdered for just for being female. There are men who hunt and kill women. Women who hunt and kill men are an extreme rarity. And that’s just the issue of hunters and killers. There’s the whole continuum of domestic violence, rapists, date rapists, intimidators…mansplaners! I’d get depressed if I thought about it but mostly I don’t. The reason I don’t thinnk about it much is because it is a problem that lurks only in the background of my life effecting me only rarely.
I think it is a whole quatum jump harder to be a black man or a black teenager. The risk of being arrested or killed because one’s pysical appearance triggers paranoia in others is greater than the risk I run of being targetted for beig female. And in a culture were paranoia can get a black male kiled, surely it isn’t hard to see that his chances of getting a job are also jeopardized!
Now I’m really depressed.
The lack of a police investigation from the get-go is disturbing. Zimmerman packing when specifically told not to, is also disturbing. How the confrontation unfolded is unclear, but it is a logical certainty that, had Zimmerman backed off, nothing of significance would have happened.
I am unclear on what the witnesses have to say, where Martin was shot, how close the gun was to the point of entry and a bunch of other things.
I infer an unfolding series of events: Zimmerman made the initial contact. What was said, demeanor, tone of voice, etc would be of major interest. Did Zimmerman press Martin in an aggressive, offensive, challenging and insulting manner, provoking a response?
Was Martin, rightly or not, offended at being singled out and did he verbalize in a way that Zimmerman took as threatening but was actually simple anger at being singled out and perhaps at being addressed rudely by Zimmerman?
Zimmerman apparently has some kind of criminal record–what do we know of that? Was he licensed to carry a concealed weapon? How did he get a license with a criminal record?
Does Martin have a record, with the police, the juvenile authorities, at school?
Was there a fight? Is it likely Zimmerman, armed, would opt for fists? Is it likely that Zimmerman would draw his pistol and then a fight would break out, or is it more likely that, facing a drawn pistol, Martin would back down, raising the question of whether the shooting was in cold blood?
If there was, in fact, a fight, a reasonable inference would be that Martin initiated the physical aspect of it. Why? An armed vigilante isn’t going to give up the advantage of being armed and default to a fist fight. He has no idea what might be in his opponent’s pocket and flashing his gun is just too much of a rush for a vigilante. Plus the fear factor: fist fights can go either way, are inherently physical, and who wants to get hurt when it isn’t necessary?
So, if there was a fist fight first, and if Martin initiated the physical aspect of the encounter, was he provoked? Was the provocation of the kind that would provoke a reasonable person to throw a punch or was it an overreaction?
Or, did Martin see that Zimmerman had a pistol in his pocket, perhaps even see that Zimmerman was reaching for it, and move defensively out of reasonable fear of his life?
We don’t know a lot of what happened. Zimmerman has some of the indicia of a hero wannabe. A reasonable surmise is that he was a lot pushier and aggressive than the situation warranted. If Zimmerman presented with objective, fresh injury including a broken nose, that is some evidence of self defense. Which does not disprove Zimmerman unreasonably and in an aggressive and insulting manner, initiating the event.
Was race a motive or a factor? Assuming Zimmerman took Martin’s race into account, does that mean that a white or Hispanic hoodie wearing individual wouldn’t have addressed by Zimmerman, even if the outcome might have been different?
Until the witnesses are examined and cross examined, there is lot we don’t and can’t know. Martin could easily be a completely innocent victim or he could have over-reacted to an inquiry from Zimmerman that itself could have ranged from the soul of reason to signaling an imminent threat.
Some inferences are more likely than others. Stupid things happen when adrenalin levels go up and events can spiral out of control. It may not be as bad as some claim, but it can still be bad enough.
Mostly, though, what the police were or were not thinking is what is really troubling. Is it likely that, had Zimmerman been killed and Martin had a broken nose, that Martin would have walked away that evening? No, it is not likely.
I agree with Laura about Avedis.
Perhaps we have all been spoiled by Brett. Even when he is taking what some of the rest of us (even us conservatives here) see as extremely wrong-headed positions, he does so civilly, and with a fair amount of regard for reality. (NOTE: I am not saying that everything Brett says is either extreme or wrong-headed. Just that he occasionally takes positions that are seen that way.) We may go so far as to wonder if he is in a different reality. But nobody suggests that he is a troll looking for a fight.
And so we get stroppy at avedis, as Gary puts it, “losing control of your temper and language”.
Well oone more comment and I have to go walk some dogs.
There are at least three cettainities in this story.
1. The police didn’t just screwup the investigation; they barely investigated at all.
2. Zimmerman wsn’t acting in self defense. If he had been interested in defeding himslef, all he had to do was stop chasing Trayvon, as the 911 responder advised him to do. Zimmerman was the agressor because he was doing the chasing and chasing someone is an aggressive behavior.
3. Trayvon wasn’t doing anything suspicious. He wasn’t acting intoxicated, he wasn’t skuling in backyards, eh wasn’t peeking inot windows, he wasn’t throwing rocks at passing traffic. He was walking on a sidewalk wearing a hooded swweatshirt. That is not suspicious behavior.
So there are a couple of key questions. Why did Zimmerman thik that walking on a sidewalk while wearing a sweatshirt was asuspicious behavior? And why didn’t the police think the incident was worth a real investigation?
And I can’t think of an answer that isn’t “racism”.
I get upset with avedis because I am so upset about this case. Normally I agree with Laura about avedis too, but he pushed my own buttons with this one.
Something that I usually say that it’s fruitless to talk about, I have to mention again: The fact that people can walk around with guns is, unfortunately, a recipe for disaster. There are a lot of people with a lot of “issues” who just should not have that kind of lethal force available to them at all times. Obviously, racism might be one of those “issues.” Paranoia might be. People who might be deluded about the degree of danger they are in shouldn’t feel so comfortable about their right to “self-defense.”
Laura is right about avedis, and with her 11:52 AM comment. The difference between the danger of being a woman though, and being a black man is that the odds of a woman negotiating this society (in terms of wealth, freedom, and general ability to make choices that further her own potential) are way better than an African-American man.
“So there are a couple of key questions. Why did Zimmerman thik that walking on a sidewalk while wearing a sweatshirt was asuspicious behavior? And why didn’t the police think the incident was worth a real investigation?”
I dont have a clue (for Phile I could stop there) what anyone was thinking, or wwhat kind of community it is. But I live in a neighborhood where any teenager walking alone after dark would be followed by the Neighborhood Watch.
There simply aren’t many people below the age of forty in the development, no one much walks anywhere unless they are walking their dog and there have been a number of breakins of peoples cars and random vandalism.
There is no gate, but there is nowhere to walk through to, it backs up to a preserve. So, while our Neighborhood Watch has magnetic reflective signs for the cars so anyone would know that is who they are, and there is a very strict call and don’t confront policy,a teenager alone at night, hoodie or not, would be followed and reported.
or for Phil
e“If anyone is leaping to conclusions about other folks’ intentions in this thread, it is avedis.”
I’m sorry, but I am not the one writing articles, op-eds and posts (like this one), and claiming with certaity that this is a racially motivated incident just because the dead kid is black and the police were sloppy.
I’m with CCDG. I have explained why elsewhere on this thread. If you want to ignore what I wrote and have a conversation with the avedis in your head then I would say that you too have slipped into the realm of rudeness.
On the subject of rudeness, I find the statement quoted here to be rude, but typical. People here consistently assign values, ideas and thoughts to me that I don’t actually have just because I think freely and don’t tow the party line on all issues.
A lot of people seem to want to racism at work in this incident. Then they get upset and rude when someone – like me – says they don’t necessarily see it because all the facts are not in.
And because every time you have a dead black kid and sloppy police work it does not point to racism. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Maybe pointing out that racism is only white on black crime and never black on white is just too much for this crowd.
And I can’t think of an answer that isn’t “racism”.
I think that’s the most likely answer. In Zimmerman’s case, stupidity and paranoia are also likely, whether in combination with racism or not. Given the 911 tape, though, racism is approaching p=1.
In the case of the police, I can’t imagine how it’s not SOP to do a reasonably thorough investigation when you have someone dead from a gunshot, at least without very highly compelling evidence of self-defense or some other sort of justifiable homocide. As it stands, the evidence of self-defense was weak, certainly weak enough that you would thoroughly investigate the death of an unarmed teenager who wasn’t involved in a crime.
The thing to keep in mind here is that it is the job of the police to investigate and, pending the result of the invesigation, to charge and/or arrest. They do not indict, try, convict or sentence anyone. So, why the hesitance to do that basic, preliminary job?
In the absence of racism, just how incompetent would they have to be?
Maybe pointing out that racism is only white on black crime and never black on white is just too much for this crowd.
I assume you meant “isn’t.” If so, it’s not too much for me. I just don’t see that it makes a very relevant point.
I’d also point out that people want to know if racism was involved because that’s what they strongly suspect, given what’s known about the case. I don’t see anything unreasonable about that.
I’m with hairshirthedontist on this one. I’m very willing to accept explanations of incompetence, especially in government. But at some point the studied indifference begins to look less like incompetence and more like malice.
If the police had found a naked dead body in the swamp, with no other clues, I would have extended plenty of leeway.
If the police had found a dead body in the street, with no witnesses, no clue as to his identity and no clue about who the killer was, I would have extended plenty of leeway.
But in this case, they had a 911 call where the operator essentially told Zimmerman to back off right before the shooting, they knew the identity of the shooter, they had a cell phone to easily identify the victim, and they ‘corrected’ a witness whose story conflicted with Zimmermans. That isn’t ‘screwups’. The proper word for that is either ‘whitewash’ or ‘coverup’.
Maybe pointing out that racism is only white on black crime and never black on white is just too much for this crowd.
See, in my view, this is the step too far.
Who the hell do you think you are? Are you here to enlighten us with your great big dose of real life?
Net/net, I find it difficult to interact with you without getting way more annoyed than is worth my while, so I will simply stop interacting with you.
Shorter me, I think you’re a rude guy, who kind of digs being a rude guy. Just my opinion. In any case, I don’t have the time or inclination to deal with it.
Other folks seem to enjoy it, or at least are willing to put up with it, so by all means continue conversing with them.
seb, I don’t understand the police reaction either. However, this is maybe where we need more information.
The implications of what you are suggesting are that the cops are essentially de facto KKK members and that, to them, the only good n****r is a dead n****r.
Maybe that is the case. If so, it is an extreme problem. Being so extreme, I’d rather wait to have more facts before leaping to conclusions. I would think the fed.s would have to get involved and clean up the police force; make an example of them.
Some one who is objective and who knows criminal law and or police procedure should comment on SOP for a situation like this.
Here’s another problem: depending on the strength of the witness’ testimony, from what I’ve read, it looks like the only evidence is what the girlfriend says she heard on the phone. If the worst is true about Zimmerman, there still could be a shortage of evidence to obtain, much less sustain, a finding of guilt. If a jury acquits, it could do so based on a reasonable doubt or for less appropriate reasons.
In other words, you could have a racially motivated crime with a non-racially motivated acquittal, simply because of a lack of evidence. Or, you could have inadequate evidence and jury that wouldn’t convict even if there was video of an execution-style murder.
Right McTX, which is why you don’t arrest until you are sure you build a case that can stand up in court, right? Not necessarily because you ate racist police.
It isn’t easy to build a case when you manifestly don’t bother to investigate.
Ok. Sebastian. What would you have investigated that the police did not? Please be detailed and explicit. Thank you.
I’m not Seb, but a prompt effort to identify the victim rather than let him sit unidentified for days would have certainly looked like investigation. Also, arresting the killer and interrogating him rather than just going ‘oh, you killed a guy for no reason? meh, whatevever’ would have also helped. Criminals sometimes confess during police interrogations, but, as a rule, it really helps if the police ask them what happened.
What would you have investigated that the police did not? Please be detailed and explicit. Thank you.
But you already said you thought the police screwed this up and that you didn’t understand their response, avedis. Have you changed your mind about that? What was it that you used to think they did wrong?
Not necessarily because you ate racist police.
Racist police taste terrible, first off.
Seriously, though, why are you so resistant to the idea that racism could have played role here and that is appears to be likely? You don’t seem to resist the idea that racism exists generally, so why is it that, in this particular place with its particular history that this particular event occurred, and given the very peculiar nature of what occurred, you think that racism isn’t particularly likely?
Maybe “necessarily” is carrying a heavy load in your statement.
Maybe there were reasons the body remained unidentified for a few days. Could be staff cutbacks. i don’t know. Somehow the id of the body seems unrelated to me to whether or not a crime was committed. As more of the story comes out, it seems police did investigate and the prosecuters office felt there wasn’t enough evidence to press charges.
Just one easily located link describing all of this.
http://www.wesh.com/r/30692415/detail.html
Oh, yes, of course the story in the link goes on to say that the Martin family is all lawyered up and will be joining up with Al Sharpton. My oh my, who would have ever guessed? Wasn’t there similar hysteria over someone named Tawana a few years ago and didn’t it kind of go this same route?
Me? I’ll just wait for more facts to come in. Thank you.
As Seb has pointed out, repeatedly, identifying a body with a cell phone is actually pretty easy. It doesn’t require weeks of lab analysis. Nor rocket science.
“Seriously, though, why are you so resistant to the idea that racism could have played role here and that is appears to be likely?”
Tawana Brawley? Duke rugby team? Prison Black Panthers putting a price on Zimmerman’s head? Mobb mentality calling for frontier justice? An idiot president who plays the race (for the second time). Why doesn’t he make references to white kids who get killed looking like the son he could have had?
I don’t know. I just don’t like knee jerk screams of racism. I don’t think it is socially healthy.
It’s madness and you’re buying into it.
And it’s a breaking story, so I have the right to alter my opinions as information comes out.
It seems that Zimmerman who is Spanish speaking and who identifies himself as non-white has black friends. It seems that some investigation was performed.
Who the hell knows what’s real at this point because it’s turned into a circus.
But you know it was cold blooded racism? Tale a bow. I applaud your peircing ability to know what is in the hearts of others from afar.
“Racist police taste terrible, first off.
Like Dick Gregory, I’d rather have the chicken anyway.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321820
And I don’t know why you keep repeating that the body sat there for three days. It did not. Apparently the martins were brought in to id the body within 24 hours; which is pretty standard.
I just don’t like knee jerk screams of racism.
You’d have to demonstrate that a given individual’s reaction in this case is knee-jerk (and a scream, I guess) for this to be relevant.
I’d suggest that it’s your knee-jerk reaction to characterize what people are writing on this blog as knee-jerk screams of racism without considering what they write and by bringing in other cases that have no bearing on the already known, factual circumstances of this case, which people here are addressing very directly.
And it’s a breaking story, so I have the right to alter my opinions as information comes out.
You and everyone else, but it’s a story that has largely broken already. Not all of the information that will come out has come out, but plenty has. I’m not sure what you might think will come out to justify all of this, but I guess we’ll see if it does.
It seems that Zimmerman who is Spanish speaking and who identifies himself as non-white has black friends.
Whooopie!
It seems that some investigation was performed.
Let’s hear about it! Is it something that hasn’t been discussed already? Was it something that only happened after the fact because of our knee-jerk screams of racism?
“The implications of what you are suggesting are that the cops are essentially de facto KKK members and that, to them, the only good n****r is a dead n****r.”
I don’t see those implications. Perhaps this is where the confusiuon or s=disagreement liesw. I don’t think a person or systme has to be de facto KKK members to be racist. All that is necessary is a sort of default mode assumption that black males are criminals or thugs or bad people unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If someone is walkinga roud with that in their head then they are harboring a prejudice that will influence how they react to a particular black male who might be or might not be a criminal or thug or bad person.
Prejudice ia a very complex phenomenon and varies widely from person to person. An no it is not an exclusively Caucasion phenomenon.
I don’t see those implications.
Neither do I. That seems to be the result of a false dichotomy consisting of a) absolute worst-possible racism or b) anything short of it, with the implication that anything falling under “b)” has no effect on people’s actions.
“You’d have to demonstrate that a given individual’s reaction in this case is knee-jerk (and a scream, I guess) for this to be relevant.”
There was an pretty standard investigation by the police. There was not enough evidence to bring a case to court. The body did not sit for three days. ID and family notification were within 24 hours. Pretty standard. The neighborhood had been experiencing break ins and other crimes. So it seems reasonable that neighborhood watch would be out a following unknown youths.
So yeah, calling this a case of racism is ridiculous at this point.
There is nothing to substantiate the allegation of racism. Nothing.
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way. Make ’em up any way that that makes you seem more justified in seeing racism where it might not be. That’s what I would knee jerk screams of racism.
I’m sure you and Russell and Dr S will be (barely) outdone by Al Sharpton and his machine.
What would you have investigated that the police did not?
I would have gotten a very precise description, step by step, of how the encounter occurred and unfolded from Zimmerman. Then, I would carefully photograph and document Martin’s at rest position and any other physical evidence there might be of the scene.
Then, I would take the pistol into custody, examine and catalogue it, possibly firing test rounds at the distance claimed by Zimmerman when he fired. I would fire the test rounds into the same type clothing being worn by Martin at the distance given by Zimmerman.
I would forensically examine Martin’s garments for gunpowder residue. I would have a competent medical examiner look for other signs of violence on Martin, noting body location of each bruise, cut, scrape, etc. I would look for stipling at the site of the gunshot wound (stipling is an indicator of how close to the body the gun was when fired).
Finally, I would document each physical injury to Zimmerman, photographically and by verbal description.
I would compare the physical evidence to Zimmerman’s initial description, looking for inconsistencies.
I would interview all witnesses both before and after gathering and assessing the physical evidence.
That’s just me doing the investigation, a civil tort and commercial trial lawyer. I would imagine the police would have other good ideas. One would hope.
Neighborhood Watch are not supposed to follow people, they’re supposed to notify police, as was noted earlier in the thread and for reasons that should be painfully obvious at this point.
You know, I think there’s nothing at all unusual or noteworthy about this case. It’s par for the course and happens all the time. Neighborhood watch guy shoots unarmed kid, after calling 911 and being told not to pursue. Unarmed kid dies. Cops show up, ask a few questions and leave. It’s all totally normal, cause cops everywhere are just incompetent dicks and this neighborhood watch guy was a tool – but that’s life. Nothing to see. Move on. Oh, and Al Sharpton.
McTX, I agree 100%. That is what should have been done. Contrary to what some of our friends here and elsewhere want us to believe, it *is* what was done.
Ya know, I comment whithout links as cites and people bitch about it. I post a link and no one reads them – or maybe they do and they just don’t like what the link tells them and they don’t want to admit they’re wrong.
I’ll try again: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321820
The link contains links to actual police reports (some partial).
Zimmerman was taken into custody. His gun was taken from him. Wtnesses were interviewed. Standard crime scene processing was done…………….
Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, some recent historical context on the often rocky relationship between Sanford police and the local black population.
I make no claim that any of this is unique to the South.
I do think the Sanford cops were remarkable screw-ups in not ensuring that the plain physical facts of the matter were not nailed down, solidly, at the time of the incident. It may well cost Lee his job.
But I doubt any of that is uniquely Southern, either.
I do claim that the fact that Martin was black made him much more likely to be interest to the neighborhood watch.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to be uniquely racist for that to be true. He would, in fact, be a remarkably colorblind individual if that wasn’t true.
Oh, and members of the Duke lacrosse team were accused or raping a black stripper who lied about being raped. I don’t think Treyvon Martin is lying about being shot to death. And Zimmerman has already admitted to doing it, you know, after following the kid around, after being told not to by the 911 operator. But, Al Sharpton and Black Panthers.
“Unarmed kid dies. Cops show up, ask a few questions and leave.”
That’s where I gotta call you out. You are simply being disengenuous.
Otherwise, yeah, sh!t happens. Every day. To people of Creeds and colors.
One kid killed by some tool and people are marching in the streets in protest. Blacks are offering bounties on the tool’s head.
Meanwhile, half a world away, US men and women only slightly older than Trayvon are getting killed and maimed all the time, as they have been for the past eleven years. For what? About as senselessly as Zimmerman versus Trayvon. Hardly a peep. Certainly no protests. No posts here. Very little liberal outrage.
“Then, I would take the pistol into custody,”
You know, they DID do that, take the pistol. As for the tests, kind of a waste of time when the guy is telling you he fired the shot, right? What’s your theory here, that he’s taking the fall for somebody else?
I think the bottom line here, is that a lot of people are confusing the omission of things from second hand accounts for those things not having happened. While a lot of accounts are omitting anything that makes the story a poorer propaganda instrument.
avedis:
Who here is, specifically? Please link to the specific comments.
If you can’t point to who, specifically, on ObWi, is saying this, you have no grounds to excuse your statements on the grounds that Someone Somewhere is saying something you don’t like.
If you don’t like what someone else somewhere else is saying, be specific about whom you are referring to, and discussion of their statements is apt to be on-topic. Or you could go wherever it is that someone has posted something you don’t like, and complain about it there.
Meanwhile, I don’t know who here you are asserting is “claiming with certaity that this is a racially motivated incident,” but if someone here is so claiming, you can give a link and quote the words and name the person.
If you can’t, you’re slurring people here for what Someone Else Said Somewhere Else, and that is, in my personal view, not civil.
In other words, if you keep making broad accusations against ObWi commenters as a whole — of whom you are one as much as anyone else — while refusing to back up your accusations, I would agree that that you’re violating the Posting Rules by doing so.
We all get that in most places we have vigorous discussions. Life is hard. Use your words to explain yourself.
Please note also that if you do this yourself, you have limited grounds on which to complain about others.
So: please don’t “consistently assign values, ideas and thoughts” to others, whether as a group (“you people,” “people here,” etc.), or to individuals, if you wish to complain that others are doing the same to you. Try the Golden Rule.
“…just because I think freely and don’t tow the party line on all issues.”
Waah, waah, waah. You’re the only one here who thinks freely. Sorry, no. Accusing everyone else of not thinking for themselves is also not civil.
Trivially, it’s “toe the line,” btw, as in lining up your feet and toes.
I imagine some do. What I see is a lot more people who are angry because the police didn’t investigate, and they have questions, rather than conclusions.
Yet you seem to completely ignore this, and what people actually write here, in favor of making accusations about some unnamed “lot of people.”
Name names. If you can’t support your claims with cites, why should anyone take your claims remotely seriously?
I agree that all the facts aren’t remotely in. Who, specifically, here has said otherwise? Please link, or withdraw your accusation here.
Slurring everyone who comments on ObWi except yourself is not acceptable. No matter how high your self-regard is.
Indeed. It raises questions, rather than conclusions. Are you asserting that these questions aren’t legitimate? That there’s nothing in the Sanford Police’s behavior to question?
If not, either be specific as to who you are responding to or referring to, or please take it elsewhere.
“This crowd” is made up solely of individuals. You’re as much “this crowd” as anyone else.
You really shouldn’t beat up on yourself like this, but that’s your business. Making blanket accusations that you’re the only person who thinks freely or otherwise insulting everyone who comments at ObWi: reconsider.
avedis:
You seem unaware that Digital Journal is a blogging platform, not a journalistic entity, and you are linking to a random blogger.
Why, exactly, does random blogger Nicole Byerly have more credibility than anyone else here? Why do you believe that, specifically?
Yyour authoritative cite is as authoritative as any of us citing any of the rest of us.
Perhaps you might consider doing the reading first, then the concluding, rather than the concluding first and then looking for random support for your conclusions.
We get that you’re very disturbed that anyone suspects any racism might be involved, and you’re very upset that questions have been raised.
Quit making false accusations about what others here believe. Just stop it.
As for the tests, kind of a waste of time when the guy is telling you he fired the shot, right?
I want to know how close he was to Martin when he fired the shot. In a scuffle, there should by physical evidence of a gunshot wound fired within 18 inches, lots of evidence if it was a contact wound. If there is no evidence consistent with a very close range shot, then I have questions about self defense from an unarmed assailant.
FWIW, I find a lot of the associated grandstanding disgusting. I also have personal experience defending an innocent man who had been tried and convicted in many quarters on the left. I am not unfamiliar with the problem. Like most of these problems, the street runs in two directions. I’ve seen my share of police brutality, prosecutorial misconduct and I recently retained, on an unrelated case, a former state arson investigator who looked at the Todd Willingham debacle and concluded there was no evidence of arson, much less intent to kill his family. Yet, our conservative governor sweeps this outrage under the rug.
Conservatives have their own victims and sources of vicarious outrage. In assessing this discrete matter, I asked myself this question: if Zimmerman were dead and if Martin was the only witness, would the police have taken him at his word and released him? I think not.
if Zimmerman were dead and if Martin was the only witness, would the police have taken him at his word and released him? I think not.
Thank you.
Way to not make generalizations about people based on your notions of race.
Oh, look, “whites” are making claims about what “blacks” are doing.
Very helpful.
BTW, “Al Sharpton” is not an argument. Seriously. It’s just not, and trying to use his name as some sort of wacko guilt-by-association-with-what-you-think-of-him simply demonstrates your own knee jerking.
Whatever Sharpton thinks or says or does changes nothing about what the facts of the case may or may not be.
WTF are you talking about?
Are you actually claiming that no one on ObWi has made posts favoring withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or Afghanistan?
If not, WTF?
No posts here.
I hereby unambiguously condemn the policy of Empire we are pursuing around the globe and the travesty that is our hypocritical human rights stance, much less our not actually very wise power politik we are conducting in western Asia at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and the unconscionable wasteful depletion of our vital national fluids.
Please do continue.
A point I didn’t touch when I quoted this claim of yours above, avedis:
This is a specific accusation you’re making about Doctor Science’s post. (Italics mine.)
Please quote the specific sentences in her post that “claim with certainty that this is a racially motivated incident.”
I’m not seeing them in her post.
But you do, so quote them.
If you can’t do that, you owe Doctor Science an apology.
If you can’t do that, you’ve made a false accusation.
We’re not big on people making attacks on the front pagers, or the commenters, based on untruths.
But you’re welcome to, instead of offering an apology, quote exactly what Doctor Science said that justifies your assertion.
Did I mention that if you can’t, you owe her an apology, and I’d seriously consider, were I you, making it public in this thread?
Taking a time-out break from ObWi, or at least this topic, for a day or so wouldn’t be something anyone could legitimately hold against you, by the way.
“Are you actually claiming that no one on ObWi has made posts favoring withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or Afghanistan?”
You want me to jump through your silly hoops picking out every quote, starting with Dr S’ blatant original post to the numerous statements in the comments that say this event is all about race (I started the exercise, but ended up with a repeat of about 30% of the comments, which was too long to post), then fair is fair. Link me to anything written recently (I am not talking about the excellent days of Eric Martin) concerning the stupid waste of our phony war on terrorism (or whatever the hell we call what ever the hell we are doing in A-Stan and a dozen other places).
Give me the names of service men and women killed or seriously maimed in the last two weeks in combat. Quick! Come on Riki Tiki……can’t can you. But we sure know all about this one kid. And he sure has risen to huge national status.
And yeah, Al Sharpton is an argument – a joke really. A joke of an argument. Now somebody be lookin’ ta git paid!
“Blacks are offering bounties on the tool’s head.
Way to not make generalizations about people based on your notions of race.”
So some goofball shoots some kid, the police do what appears to be a standard investigation, but the prosecuters office finds no grounds for an arrest based on the investigation, and charges of racism abound. People marching in the streets. POTUS even gets up in the game.
Black Panthers put a price on a man’s head and……..nothing…..crickets chirping………where is POTUS’ condemnation of his panther bro.s? In for a dime in for a dollar, right.
You don’t see anything wrong with this scene?
His panther bro.s, huh? Somehow, the president commenting on this case at all requires him to comment on every questionable reaction to it as well, lest it be assumed he approves. And the fact that people on this blog are discussing the case requires us to discuss our on-going (and not-so-on-going) military adventures around the world, lest we lose all credibility, despite many, many vigorous past discussions on then on-going military adventures, which were subject to great criticism at great length. (Oh, wait, I’m not allowed to bring that up. Never mind. Of course, why should I, since it’s not at all relevant to the current topic. The “why aren’t you talking about this other thing” argument never gets old, except that it does.)
Well, you know, hsh, all black people both look alike and know each other. And they’re all LOOKIN’ TA GIT PAID, said in a comical Mantan Moreland dialect whilst shoving watermelons into their mouths.
Man, Gary types fast.
avedis wrote:
“Meanwhile, half a world away, US men and women only slightly older than Trayvon are getting killed and maimed all the time, as they have been for the past eleven years. For what? About as senselessly as Zimmerman versus Trayvon. Hardly a peep. Certainly no protests. No posts here. Very little liberal outrage.”
Hey bub, scroll up and train your eyes on the guy’s name at the top of the far right column just under the OBWI masthead.
Now, life your right foot from the floor and stand there one-legged.
Keeping the right foot elevated, lift the left foot as well.
That’s gotta hurt.
Meanwhile, your comparison up above of Russell and Doctor S to Al Sharpton (no fan here; he’s an anti-Semite) is something you should leave to the professional demagogues like Neil Boortz, Michelle Malkin, or any number of Solly Hemus’ over at Redrum, who make good money waxing smarmy.
Look, I know you’re licensed to conceal carry in, is it New York state, and by some Zimmerman-like, self-deputizing, comma-laden Second Amendment extension into tough bars in Cleveland, but you should know that I was somehow awarded (merely honorary in an attempt to humor crazy me, in case I might actually be crazy, like when the Wizard of Oz pinned those medals on Dorothy’s three fellow travelers to get rid of them) a long time ago the title of Resident Tourette’s Syndrome Thread Immobilizer at OBWI and I’ve got to say that, as such, I’m the only one here who is given leave to randomly bark like a hyena, honk like a goose, leap into commenters laps, kiss them smack on the lips, and snap their bow ties like a neurasthenic Daffy Duck, and wet myself, roll my eyes and shout the lyrics of “Wild Thing” while someone explains the finer points of tort law and well … to be brief …. I know it’s just not fair … but you’re cramping my style.
The crazy part, not the funny part.
You’re like Yosemite Sam without Mel Blanc, without the Looney Tunes stable of writers, and without the clever illustrators and the goofy music.
You’re just a guy shooting up the joint.
Avendis, who is that link to? I’ve never heard of that journalistic outlet, and it directly contradicts for example the NYT. Now I’m not saying they are never wrong. Not at all, but I’m not seeing where your source is getting all this information which contradicts the official sources.
Uh, Andrew, god rest his soul, doesn’t write here any more. Invoking his name is well, meaningless where current authorship and direction of the blog is concerned. There are still guys dying over there. I wonder if any look like Obama’s son? I wonder if Al Sharpton will take up their cause when they come home all f’ed up needing medical treatment and jobs.
This place is already full of holes, It makes shooting more into it very difficult. There’s barely any substance to aim to hit.
Why is it that most threads avedis participates in, end up being about avedis?
If avedis finds this community so annoying, why does he hang out here?
Indeed.
And the oldest cliche in the blogging book is “you believe X because you haven’t blogged about Y.”
Bite me.
“Link me to anything written recently (I am not talking about the excellent days of Eric Martin) concerning the stupid waste of our phony war on terrorism (or whatever the hell we call what ever the hell we are doing in A-Stan and a dozen other places).”
Why on earth should I? You think the front pagers should explain our personal lives to you, and why we do or don’t post, or why we haven’t posted?
Bite me. You don’t get to demand we make posts here on your topics and schedule. You’re free to start your own blog.
We’re very tolerant here of people acting like assholes, but we set limits.
You’re asking to be banned. If you don’t care, fine. You’ve been warned.
I have no idea what concern over Trayvon’s death means lack of concern over the unnecessary waste of life in A-Stan and Iraq.
I don’t concern is a zero sum game.
And i thik avedis is making my defense of him look kind of naive. I wish he would quit doing that.
And i thik avedis is making my defense of him look kind of naive. I wish he would quit doing that.
Yes, that’s how I have felt.
“So I am troll because i disagree with your liberal newsletter mass mailings on the topic.”
Well, that certainly sounds like the voice of a man trying to contribute to a polite, reasoned discussion. “Liberal newsletter mass mailings” is a very odd thing to call a blog. But hey, what does reality matter?
As for the racial issue, reports make clear that Zimmermann used a racial slur, which rather suggests that race was very much on his mind. Dragging in a different case, without any evidence of racial hatred involved in it, is not a reasoned or helpful contribution to the discussion. It might make a member of the singularly tedious brotherhood of professional white victims feel better, but it does nothing to advance discussion of the actual issues here.
As for the whole attempt to claim that a person wearing a hoodie somehow deserves to be regarded as a danger to society, I note that Bill Belichick wears a hoodie in public, that a good number of my white neighbors wear them and that I myself in all my dazzling whiteness have been known to wear them – sometimes in company with my admittedly imperfectly white wife when we go to the mall. Doubtless we all deserve to be stalked and murdered by Zimmermann, because, you know, people wearing hoodies are clearly up to no good, even on a cold and windy March day. Or maybe not.
The salient facts here are that a 17 year old boy, armed with candy and a drink, was shot dead by an older, heavier male who had been stalking him with obvious racial animus on his mind. What was the boy’s crime? Why none. What is the right wing response? To slander the dead black youth and ginn up ludicrous claims about how his photo had been whitened, while trying to make the man who stalked and killed him into a victim. How long will they abuse our patience? As long as they think they can get away with it.
“Why is it that most threads avedis participates in, end up being about avedis?”
Because you’d rather attack and malign the messanger as opposed to deal with the message.
This thread was classic. Brett started, per usual, nicely addressing important information gaps in the sources that were used in support of Dr S’ racist hypothesis.
This piqued my interest. I had started seeing the Trayvon story all over. I don’t really care about Trayvon per se any more than I do anyone else i read about in the paper who died young and suddenly and less so than those who die young and suddenly in service of their country or fellow man. But I do care about my country and how it’s citizens think and the dynamics of mass media and democracy. So, based on Brett’s comments, I look into the Trayvon thing some more. It’s turns out that people here, as well as elsewhere, are wildly quoting all sorts of things that are materially false (and no, I’m not going to f’ing link to those things here as they are already mentioned in dozens of other posts).
So, what I see here is a bunch of people that want to believe a certain story regardless of the facts because it fits their world view. And I see bigger fish happily manipulating people like many of those here because they are playing politics, making money, getting fame, etc
So then people here just keep repeating what they want to believe, like “well they should have ID’ed the body and notified the parents faster than three days”, implying, I suppose, lack of concern for dead black kids. There is ample reportage out there that says the parents were notified the next day. In fact the parents themselves say they were notified the next day. So I mention this as in, “see, you guys might have jumped to conclusions based on incomplete or misleading reporting”. The response to me, is basically, “avedis, you’re a poopoo head and a defender of gun carrying racists.”
Then I get Gary Farber coming at me personally as opposed to addressing the arguments, facts and possibility that maybe Zimmerman isn’t a racist and maybe this isn’t a racist incident. Farber is master of, perhaps orginator of, the OBWI weasel (weasel as in a dance/shuffle – not the animal – though he may have one of those stashed somewhere for fun as well). Smoke and mirrors. “Who says that it’s about racism? ” “you owe Dr S an apology”. Well, to my mind, there is a reason DR S’ post contained all that material about the southern racist past, about specific racism in Florida and just a few miles away (as the doc notes) in modern times this event with Zimmerman/Martin.
Silly me, I figure there’s an implied intended, on Dr S’ part, connection; as in the recent event is a continuation of the racist past. Perhaps I look for too much meaning here. perhaps Dr S is just a spastic and all sorts of disconnected thoughts spew from her brain to the typepad and her posts are more like an ink blot test or something. I thought there was a logical flow leading from the past century up to racism in Z versus M.
And of course there was.
I don’t need Farber’s crap.
Why bring up A-stan? Because if we are all so interested in poor Trayvon because he got shot to death young for no good reason, then why no interest in guys about his age that are also getting shot to death young for no good reason in wars that accomplish nothing? Why no posts on that? Note Farber cannot/will not answer.
Nor will the headliners. Why? They don’t give a fnck. It doesn’t fit their agenda. They don’t have the backbone to deal with it. So, it’s a gender issues and race issues blog. Kind of stuff you get in the first couple years at any LA undergrad program at a state school these days. That’s cool. Why not just admit it? Why is that so hard to do?
You’ll be happy to know that I won’t be back here. I seek intelligent honest conversation. There are some here ready, willing and able to engage in that. Saddly, most not. Especially the headliners.
I am not interested in feminst persecution myths, fags or phony drummed up racism or anything else coming from people that argue like a bunch of pussies instead of discuss like men.
“I am not interested in feminst persecution myths, fags or phony drummed up racism or anything else coming from people that argue like a bunch of pussies instead of discuss like men.”
Interesting attempt to strike a pose of heroic manhood while fleeing out the door with one’s pants on fire. Not, however, completely successful.
OK avedis, dig this.
As far as I’m concerned, you may not be a troll, but you’re a raging asshole.
Every time you engage in a thread, sooner or later the thread devolves into a pissing contest about whether everyone at ObWi is a liberal pussy, and whether we just can’t take the brute reality that avedis wants to bring.
I don’t know who the f**k you think you are, but as far as I can tell, what you’re bringing is just not all that special.
Speaking just for myself, I’ve spent years hanging on political blogs where virtually everyone had a position opposed to mine. And I had no problem dealing with it, nor did they have any problem dealing with me.
So my inability, or anyone else here’s inability, to deal with “the messenger” is not the issue.
The issue is that any conversation with you eventually turns into what a pussy the other guy is, and what a righteous dude you are.
So screw you, dude. That’s my reply. As Gary says, bite me. Not because I have any huge disagreement with your point of view, but because you are incapable of engaging in a conversation with other people without it somehow being all about you.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re dragging this place down. Any thread you’re on turns toxic as soon as you touch it.
On this thread, you have brought exactly one interesting piece of information. I was unaware that Martin’s father had been allowed to id his son within 24 hours. If that in fact is true, I’m damned glad to know it, because no parent should have to wait three days to find out their kid is dead.
Other than that, everything else you’ve brought is horseshit, or off topic.
You want to lecture me about my my lack of an open mind, or my inability to face ‘the truth’, or any other damned thing? You can leave that in the car, dude, because you have no idea what I’m about, or what truths I can or cannot, or have or have not, faced.
You are entitled to engage with what I say here, and nothing more.
I don’t give a flying f**k if you stick around or not. But this is the last conversation you will have with me. Because I have better things to do than waste my time with you. I hope you do leave, and I hope you do not come back, because you have been nothing but a corrosive, destructive presence here.
I invite the other front-pagers to ban me outta here if this is out of line. I’ll consider it a very small price to pay.
Bye now.
avedis is just a little cog in the machine, folks. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think avedis is a cog in any machine. I also think he does not intend to be trolling. He’s just kind of a rude dude.
In and of itself, that doesn’t bug me. I, personally, am just sick of hearing about how we’re all just a bunch of whiny pussies who can’t handle avedis’ heavy truth.
It doesn’t appear to occur to him that maybe folks just aren’t won over by what he has to say for reasons other than their personal inability to deal.
Whatever.
If this joint is no longer your cup of tea, fine. No worries. If you don’t like the company, go elsewhere.
Just quit b*tching about it. That’s all I’m asking.
Apologies to all for the rant, it was likely inappropriate. Windows kernel objects were kicking my @ss, it was late, and I was just fed up.
Onward and upward.
Whether or not somebody is trolling seems completely irrelevant to me. Rudeness and ill-formed arguments are enough, in my opinion, to make them not worth addressing.
Morzer: What was the boy’s crime? Why none.
You left out the part where the boy was entirely within his rights under Florida law. Suppose he hit, and even injured, Zimmerman after being pursued. Was he not merely “Standing His Ground” when attacked himself? Perhaps his only failing was that he didn’t have a gun with which to shoot Zimmerman.
No dount someone on the right will shortly be making exactly that point. Where is the NRA when we need them?
On the point that there is plenty of “black on black” violence that does not get this level of “liberal” outrage:
Please point out any case of a black-on-black shooting, where the police show up to find the shooter, armed, standing over a dead shooting victim, and the police just LET THE SHOOTER WALK AWAY.
Not saying it never happened, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t inherently object to ill-formed arguments, as they can sometimes present useful springboards for articulate and informative responses.
Also, sometimes it’s enjoyable to hit the piñata.
I don’t mind rudeness within limits. My sensibilities aren’t so delicate that they can’t stand up to some excess, and a bit of rough and tumble is part of the game — within limits. There’s are lines between rudeness and vileness, rudness and personal attacks, rudeness and idiocy.
But:
People can be interested in whatever they wish, but saying on ObWi that you have no interest in anything said by someone who discusses it like a woman, or a “fag,” or is a “fag,” in my opinion falls under the rubric of “also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule” and absolutely under “We have no desire to censor people whose views we disagree with. However, there is a difference between stating and defending an unpopular position on the one hand, and repeated drive-by insults on the other, and the fact that we welcome the first does not mean that we must accept the second. We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one’s views or engaging in reasoned argument about them.”
Outright repeated misogynistic or gay-hating statements are not acceptable.
If I missed this part of the discussion, I apologize, but I did hear one reason for non-arrest that seems free of racism: the concern that as soon as Zimmerman is arrested he will move to dismiss.). There is corroboration for his story.
Under Florida law (as far as I can tell), the Stand Your Ground law allows the defense to file a motion to dismiss regarding the applicability of the Stand Your Ground immunity. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3rd 456 (2010). That is because the statute not only allows an enhanced self defense affirmative defense, it contemplates that a defendant has a substantive right to not be “arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as the result of the use of legally justified force.” 776.032(1). That means evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss as soon as an arrest, detention, charge or prosecution happens. Under Dennis and Peterson v. State, 9083 So.2d 27 (2008)) the burden of proof for the defense is a preponderance (i.e. more likely than not) that the statutory immunity applies. The prosecution cannot get out saying there is a factual dispute or there is probable cause to believe the use of force was unjustified (reasoning: the law already mandated that a trial judge make a PC determination either before or shortly after a defendant is taken into custody; new law providing immunity from “criminal prosecution” must be interpreted in a way that gives a defendant more protection under the basic rule of statutory construction that a statute must be interpreted in a way to avoid rendering a portion of a statute meaningless).
If the defendant meets his burden, the prosecution has to rebut or the charges are dismissed. If dismissed, the prosecution cannot re-file without additional information. I’m not a criminal attorney, but I wonder if there is a jeopardy argument here. Under a regular “probable cause” motion to dismiss, the prosecution can re-file with any new information. Is the case any different after an evidentiary hearing under 776.032? Even if subject to the normal rule, you would want all your information in up front to overcome a motion to dismiss.
Zimmerman will presumably argue 776.013(3), which says if he is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is attacked in a place he has a right to be he has no duty to retreat and can meet force with force if he thinks it’s necessary to prevent great bodily harm. So he says he saw Treyvon, called the cops, they suggested he stay in the car but didn’t order him to so he got out to see what the guy was doing. Treyvon ran away, he didn’t find him, and as he was going back to my car Treyvon attacked him (note: this is for purposes of argument only
In rebutting this, the girlfriend’s testimony will have admission problems, as McKinneyTexas noted. The prosecutor has to be concerned about the sufficiency of “young voice” id’s and an eye witness who saw Zimmerman after the death of Treyvon. OTOH, there are the apparent epithets.
If the above is correct, waiting for a grand jury seems like the smart move. Let the evidence develop in the meantime, see if more comes out during the grand jury, and then move forward if the evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Doesn’t excuse initial investigation, but it does explain why the current prosecutor is proceeding deliberately and not rushing to arrest.
Of course, I could be completely wrong.
thanks bc, that is very good information.
I’m curious about why the phone call with the girlfriend would have admission problems. I’ll go back up and read McK’s comment to see what he said. I may have more questions after that.
Based on the facts as I understand them, proving Zimmerman is guilty of a crime may be difficult. IANAL, of course.
The key, to me, is the lack of a witness to the beginning of the fight.
We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, and that Martin noticed. We know Martin sped up (fast walk/run), based on both the gf’s account and Zimmerman on the 9-1-1 tape. Gf says Zimmerman demanded to know what Martin was doing there, while Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him – then the call goes dead.
… gap …
A witness says Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. Then shots. Another witness says she heard Martin calling for help before the shots. Zimmerman says that was him, not Martin.
The gap is a big problem. Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind (i.e. w/o provocation/justification). I find this… not terribly plausible, but I can’t prove otherwise.
I know what I think. But what can be proven is another matter.
A new wrinkle:
What I think is that Zimmerman was automatically suspicious of Martin because he’s a black young man. The hoodie was gravy. That’s something that young black men live with pretty much every day.
Zimmerman thinking his presence there was “suspicious” makes him more or less as racist as most other folks who aren’t black. Which is to say, it’s just in the freaking air.
From all of the information we have at hand, my guess is that Zimmerman, who had been tailing Martin in his car for something like a half hour, got out of his car and confronted him.
Then they got into a fight.
Then Martin got the better of him.
Then Zimmerman shot him.
I would find it likely, given the “stand your ground” law in FL, that the AG would prefer not to press charges because it won’t be an easy case to make. There was a fight, Zimmerman did have injuries.
But the basic reason Martin is dead is because (a) Zimmerman was automatically suspicious of him because he was a young black man, and (b) Zimmerman way overstepped the bounds of what he was prepared, by way of personal common sense or training, to handle in that situation.
He should have stayed in his car and waited for the cops to come, like the dispatcher recommend that he do.
I doubt he will be charged, but IMO he is responsible. Not because he’s a blatant racist, because I doubt he is. Or, at least, it’s less than clear that he is. But because he’s a knucklehead.
Carrying a gun doesn’t make you a cop.
I’m hesitant to speak for black people, because I’m not one. But it makes perfect sense, to me, for black people to find this whole case a source of tremendous outrage.
Because their boys can’t walk home from the 7/11 without automatically being the target of suspicion. Still, after all these years. And when some wound-up dude like Zimmerman ends up shooting somebody, it’s more likely to be one of their kids than not.
I don’t find their anger hard to understand.
“Zimmerman thinking his presence there was “suspicious” makes him more or less as racist as most other folks who aren’t black. Which is to say, it’s just in the freaking air.”
I completely fail to understand why the “who aren’t black” was necessary here, except as a gratuitous way of sneaking in the absurd claim that blacks aren’t racist.
.
But the basic reason Martin is dead is because (a) Zimmerman was automatically suspicious of him because he was a young black man, and (b) Zimmerman way overstepped the bounds of what he was prepared, by way of personal common sense or training, to handle in that situation.\
And (c) Zimmerman had a gun. And (d) Zimmerman probably thought he could shoot someone because guns and “self-defense” are the new black, and he felt threatened.
So, is what we have here institutional racism, a one-off event in which “who hit who first?” is ambiguous or what?
I’m hesitant to speak for black people, because I’m not one. But it makes perfect sense, to me, for black people to find this whole case a source of tremendous outrage.
Because their boys can’t walk home from the 7/11 without automatically being the target of suspicion. Still, after all these years. And when some wound-up dude like Zimmerman ends up shooting somebody, it’s more likely to be one of their kids than not.
Russell, I find the outrage problematic. I can’t do links (Slarti, I’ve tried, I really have), so here is an article that discusses statistics, and other things: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294357/why-manipulate-tragedy-trayvon-martin-heather-mac-donald.
Yes, it’s from National Review Online, so perhaps that is a problem (not for me, but for others, or maybe not). It looks to me like (a) death by gunshot in Martin’s age/race demographic is perhaps the leading cause of death for that demographic and (b) the vast, vast majority of such deaths are perpetrated by members of that same demographic, i.e. the crime is far more often than not, black-on-black.
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage (a good deal of it, quite frankly, appearing opportunistically orchestrated), when the hard facts suggest a much larger, much more common problem that no one, particularly those leading the outrage, seem to want to talk about.
But, I am willing to be educated.
Final note: I was troubled by what appeared to be a lack of diligent investigation. Phil and bc have brought forward information that puts that in context, i.e. there is more to that discrete issue than met the eye.
Haha, black leaders talk about the problem of black on black crime like, literally, all the time. You just are not, shall we say, in their target audience.
(And yes, I do find links to a publication that unrepentantly fought desegregation to be more than a little problematic. I am definitely not interested in articles on race from anything that would publish J0hn D3rbyshire and M4rk St3yn. Google-proofed because heaven forbid they ever find this place.)
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage (a good deal of it, quite frankly, appearing opportunistically orchestrated), when the hard facts suggest a much larger, much more common problem that no one, particularly those leading the outrage, seem to want to talk about.
This is the kind of claim that reduces many liberals to a spluttering mass of inchoate rage. I will only note a few things:
1. Whites run this country, not blacks.
2. Black poverty rates are a national disgrace. There is an obvious reason for this.
3. As a general rule, I am just as outraged by blacks lynching white folks….wait, that didn’t happen.
4. I was astounded to find out that most murders of white folks are committed by other white folks. I guess something must be done.
5. The larger problem is white racism. Most white folks today dismiss the idea out of hand.
6. There is a lot of material out there where more could be learned on this subject.
But, I am willing to be educated.
For that I am grateful, and it is genuinely appreciated.
I completely fail to understand why the “who aren’t black” was necessary here, except as a gratuitous way of sneaking in the absurd claim that blacks aren’t racist.
Sorry, poorly worded.
What I take to be Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin for no reason other than the fact he was black is fairly common among people who aren’t black.
It’s not the only species of, for lack of a better word, ambient racism, and the American black population partakes of their share.
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage
I doubt that I’m the guy to be handing out education on this topic, but I’ll take a stab.
It’s quite true that young black guys killing young black guys is much more common than white neighborhood watch dudes killing young black guys. And, I think everyone, including the black community, understands that.
And, I think the black community is quite outraged about young black guys killing young black guys, along with whoever else is in the general vicinity.
All of that said, black people, especially young black men, live with other people being more or less constantly suspicious and apprehensive of them. Regardless of who they are, what they’re doing, whatever.
Young black guy means scary guy. Whether it makes any sense or not.
I think it wears people out, living with that. I know it would get under my skin.
I have enough black friends, and have seen them in enough situations like this, to know they’re not making it up.
It’s like going through life with two strikes against you, before you even get out of bed.
And god forbid that your kid actually screw up. Then, it’s just proof that your kind of people are exactly what everyone thinks they are.
So, I understand why this case would make them angry. The kid was walking to his father’s house, from the 7-11, with an iced tea and some skittles. And Zimmerman pegged him as “suspicious”, “on something”, one of the “assholes” who “always get away”.
I feel very confident that, had Martin been white, he would not only be alive, he would barely have attracted Zimmerman’s attention.
How many 17 year old kids who were not black boys did Zimmerman follow around? I don’t know, but I’m going to guess the number is quite small, likely zero.
I could be wrong about that, but I think the odds are in my favor.
Living with stuff like that, all day every day, wears people down. You feel like you don’t belong in your own country.
So, it makes sense to me that black folks are damned angry about this.
What I take to be Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin for no reason other than the fact he was black is fairly common among people who aren’t black.
And just to make sure it’s clear that my comment here is not about finger-pointing, I am also prone to this.
I will avoid a young black guy more often than I’ll avoid a young white guy, all other things being equal.
If I’m parking my car and young black guys are around, I’m more likely to make sure it’s locked than if some young white guys are hanging around.
It’s in the air.
….except as a gratuitous way of sneaking in the absurd claim that blacks aren’t racist.
An incredibly irrelevant and gratuitous remark.
Perhaps some day in an imaginary distant universe when a black neighborhood “watch cop” stalks and kills a young white kid because he “looked suspicious” walking around in a gated black community we will be able to discuss black racism, and the presumption by a large segment of the black community that the kid “brought it on himself”….thus opening the door to discuss the pressing problem of high white crime and white on white murder rates.
Um, wow.
Yes, Brett, I think you do fail to understand.
I did not read that as any sort of attempt at saying “blacks are not racist.” Russell said, basically, that non-blacks probably struggle to imagine exactly what anti-black racism is like.
…
Look, as we were leaving our parking garage at work today, my wife and I saw a black man walking (slowly, kinda meandering) around. There have been some smash & grab jobs lately. She remarks, upon seeing him, that she finds him suspicious. He was dressed, btw, in office-work type attire. My wife found herself thinking that might be a good disguise for a thief.
This is not someone who thinks black people are bad, or that they should be kept down, or whatever. But that, right there, is one particular iteration of 21st century racism.
This is what people mean when they say such things are “in the air.” Black man = trouble is something that is freaking EVERYWHERE in our culture.
I put in a mild “or, he could have forgotten where he parked” and left it at that. FWIW, she agreed. Thankfully, neither of us have delusional savior complexes + firearms. 😉
Thankfully, neither of us have delusional savior complexes + firearms. 😉
Right. We’re all guilty of something, some wrongheadedness of some kind. Enforcing those concepts lethally is where there’s real trouble. (Politically it’s also a problem, but at least the victims can try to fight back.)
“the absurd claim that blacks aren’t racist”
A claim which appears to exist only in the fevered imagination of a person attempting to drag the thread away from the topic of Trayvon Martin. You know, the murdered black kid who dared to wear a hoodie while walking down the street packin’ candy.
that, right there, is one particular iteration of 21st century racism.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
Thanks Rob.
Stereotypes exist. This is apparently a crazy assertion to some.
And yes, I’m guilty too at times. I catch my unconcious brain doing it. I fight it. But it’s there to be fought. And it got there somehow. Damn, I don’t even really know exactly how (it was not my parents, or any personal experiences).
This case, regardless of whether Zimmerman is found guilty of anything, really bring that to the fore. Zimmerman, like so many, has internalized the stereotype. The difference between him and I is probably a dash of paranoia, some personal experiences, a strong desire on his part to play hero, and of course possession of a deadly weapon.
Dred Scott lives
I’d be interested in hearing McT’s take on the release of Trayvon’s school records. Not trying to catch you out here, but I think that this is much more a problematic manipulation given that an official must have released these.
“I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage (a good deal of it, quite frankly, appearing opportunistically orchestrated), when the hard facts suggest a much larger, much more common problem that no one, particularly those leading the outrage, seem to want to talk about.”
As Russell said, probably initially because of the apparent tardiness or apathy of law enforcement to investigate the killing.
I read the National Review piece you linked to. Yes, there are problems more serious in terms of life lost than the one presented by Trayvon Martin. So what? Does that mean we have to shut up about him? Does it invalidate the concerns his killing reminds us of?
I think you’re right that it could be true of a corporation like CNN or MSNBC that they are coldly seeking to exploit a newsworthy event and are hypocrites in that they have no time or coverage to spare for more pressing and large-scale social problems affecting the black community.
However, proving that someone’s a hypocrite doesn’t invalidate everything they say. If CNN is a hypocrite for not devoting more coverage to other issue affecting AAs, that doesn’t have a lick to do with Trayvon Martin, it just proves that they’re inconsistency.
The NRO is doing what is known on message boards as concern trolling.
It is also funny to see NRO bemoaning the lack of serious treatment of black issues.
“Family breakdown, not white racism, is the biggest impediment facing blacks today”
Maybe white racism (or institutionalized racism, if you prefer a colorless label) causes family breakdown? Maybe we have incredibly harsh drug laws that disproportionately affect and punish the poor, who are disproportionately black, creating a permanent underclass of people who cycle in and out of prison with few opportunities to extract themselves?
This is why I don’t go to the NRO for interesting commentary on racial issues – or anything else for that matter. If we feel like talking about white racism as a possible cause of apathy to the murder of a black kid, I see no reason to heed the NRO’s plaintive mewling of “won’t somebody PLEASE think of black-on-black crime.”
Especially when black community orgs, churches, anti-gang initiatives, etc are all knee-deep in these issues, every day, as Phil noted.
“But when that justice comes, as it most surely will”
That line was a knee-slapper.
As for avedis, my conviction that he is a troll comes from the fact that I frequent message boards that are a lot lower on the intellectual totem pole than this one – I know what serious trolling looks like.
But even if he isn’t a troll, who cares? Is there some kind of unrebuttable law against banning people so long as they spew lies/misconceptions in good faith? His contributions require ENDLESS nitpicking because of his (take your pick) intellectual laziness or deliberately sloppy writing, uncritical receptiveness to racist and homophobic argument, and oversimplification. I mean, Gary Farber is very interesting to read, but NOT on the topic of the six millionth reason avedis is wrong.
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage (a good deal of it, quite frankly, appearing opportunistically orchestrated), when the hard facts suggest a much larger, much more common problem that no one, particularly those leading the outrage, seem to want to talk about.
My outrage is about the killer standing over the body with the gun, and the cops saying they can’t arrest him because he claimed “self defense.”
And as we are looking at the law, it appears the cops may be right, which should generate more outrage over a ridiculous law.
“and the cops saying they can’t arrest him because he claimed “self defense.””
Seriously? You seriously think it went down that way? Because the Florida law doesn’t say you can’t arrest somebody who claims self defense. Basically, it says you can’t arrest them if they claim self defense, and you lack probable cause to believe they’re lying about it.
So, this dude is claiming somebody he shot punched him in the mouth, and was beating his head against the pavement. He’s got a busted lip and the back of his head is bloody. There’s a witness who says he saw the dude on the bottom being beaten. All your evidence is consistent with his story.
Where do you find the probable cause in that?
There’s a conscious effort underway to carve away details from this case, in order to turn it into the ideal instrument with which to attack “Stand your ground” laws. But those pesky details keep creeping back in and ruining the narative.
So, this dude is claiming somebody he shot punched him in the mouth, and was beating his head against the pavement. He’s got a busted lip and the back of his head is bloody. There’s a witness who says he saw the dude on the bottom being beaten. All your evidence is consistent with his story.
Where do you find the probable cause in that?
Because given the other facts of the case — Zimmerman following Martin in his SUV, Zimmerman calling the cops, Zimmerman pursuing and confronting Martin on foot — it was MARTIN who was exercising HIS right to self-defense, as he quite likely had a reasonable belief that he was about to come to serious harm at Zimmerman’s hands.
There’s a conscious effort underway to carve away details from this case, in order to turn it into the ideal instrument with which to attack “Stand your ground” laws.
Martin was the one standing his ground. Zimmerman pursued him, found himself in a fight he couldn’t win, and shot his way out of it.
Are you under the misimpression that you have to have a firearm to exercise your right to self-defense and to Stand Your Ground? Because that’s patently silly. Or, hey, maybe you just want every fistfight to escalate into a gunfight, so long as “the right people (wink, wink)” win every time. I can’t read your mind.
It is a shame that avedis left before I had a chance to ask him what “race” he thinks Martin and Charlie Sheen are. Or Cameron Diaz. Or Charlotte Ayana. Or Rita Hayworth.
Oh, and BTW, Zimmerman’s other 911 calls, which include not only considering stray dogs, potholes and piles of trash to be police emergencies, but also:
Even little children were not safe from George Zimmerman, Mall Cop:
There’s a conscious effort underway to carve away details from this case, in order to turn it into the ideal instrument with which to attack “Stand your ground” laws.
That may be, but we also have a clear statement from the original sponsor of the law stating that this kind of situation is *not* what the law was intended to protect.
It also appears that the original investigator wanted to press charges, and was asked to stand down by the AG. Which is not exactly the same thing as saying Zimmerman’s clean.
I don’t live in FL, so the “stand your ground” law has no effect on me. I do live in MA, where a similar law was just proposed, and you can bet your @ss I will be on the horn to my rep about it, and I encourage anyone living in MA who is reading this to do the same.
I don’t personally own a gun, and I can’t think of anything I personally own that I would kill anybody over. But that’s my business, and other folks have the right to make their own decisions about stuff like that.
But not retreating from a home invasion is not, remotely, the same as “not retreating” from a fight that is the result of your stalking somebody with no good cause.
If this is what comes of “stand your ground”, I do not want it in my state.
On the other hands there are lots of examples of the other side leaving out info or prsenting speculation as fact too.
E.g. I have yet to see a proof that Mr. Zimmerman’s nose got broken (at least that should be easy). For the other injuries there seem to be only witness acounts that could be biased and could not be physically proven anymore. Then there is the alleged tampering with eyewitness accounts that contradict Mr.Zimmerman’s version of the events. It also seems beyond dispute that Mr.Martin’s dead body got drug tested (negatively!*) while Mr.Zimmerman was not. I see systematic attempts to play up alleged or real contra-legal activity of both participants while suppressing the same for the respective other.
What I see independent of what really happened is gross incompetence/negligence on part of the police that follows a bad tradition that at least in the past was definitely racially motivated. The case is seen as exemplifying that scandalous tradition and thus drew the spotlight towards it. Had the police done its job by the book, there likely would not have been the public outrage even if Mr.Zimmerman got a full acquittal.
*while being suspended from school for alleged drug use based on circumstantial evidence (I do not make any claims about the validity either for or against).
I’d be interested in hearing McT’s take on the release of Trayvon’s school records. Not trying to catch you out here, but I think that this is much more a problematic manipulation given that an official must have released these.
Yep, it’s problematic given the absence of a subpoena and the privacy that normally attaches to school disciplinary and grade records. Some school activity stuff is open record, like membership in a club or on a team. Suspensions and the like are private.
The encounter is a mess, both sides have their advocates and many others, from what I’ve read, on both sides of the spectrum are pretty balanced in their views. Martin was probably not the cookie baking boy scout he was first portrayed to be, Zimmerman may not be the trigger happy loon some say he was. Someone at the school probably felt obliged to spill some beans to balance what he/she thought was an unbalanced picture. As an aside, I am very careful not to pitch my clients, as right as they may be, as angels. It just paints a bigger target.
Typically, encounters like this begin with words and escalate to blows then a gun comes out, usually from the guy who is losing the fist fight part. So, who swung first and under what provocation? And was the gun drawn and fired because the fight wouldn’t end or because the shooter was angry and wanted pay back? Without eye witnesses, or even with them, it will be really hard to know.
I have to bail, big trial next week, not going to settle. I wouldn’t mind a post down the road to follow up, not on this discrete issue, but the issues raised by BP at 7:20 and Russell at 7:23.
Wow. You go on vacation for a few days, and look what happens.
Looks as if it’s been handled; thanks to russell, Gary, and the general commentariat.
My position on this is largely in agreement with that of Sebastian, here.
So, who swung first and under what provocation?
The question I have, that nobody will probably ever be able to answer, is whether Zimmerman ever answered Martin’s question:
Why are you following me?
Zimmerman’s statement was apparently, “What are you doing here?”. Not, “Excuse me, I’m with the neighborhood watch, I don’t think I’ve seen you here before, we’ve had some break-ins, I’m just keeping an eye out for strangers”.
Just “What are you doing here?”. After following him around, without making any other attempt at contact, for something like a half hour.
Zimmerman was apparently not dressed in any kind of uniform, and was driving his own, presumably unmarked, vehicle.
Was there any reason for Martin to know Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch?
Or was, from his point of view, Zimmerman just some dude who had been stalking him around the neighborhood for a while, in spite of his attempts to walk (and then run) away, and who had now left his car and was approaching him on foot?
Did Martin see that Zimmerman had a gun?
What, exactly, was his responsibility to “wait and see” what kind of character Zimmerman turned out to be?
Given the limited facts that we have, it’s hard for me to see Martin as owning much, if any, responsibility for this.
Zimmerman should have stayed in his damned car and waited for the cops to show up. He shouldn’t have pursued Martin, either by car or on foot, after the dispatcher told him to stand down. He shouldn’t, per the neighborhood watch rules if I have them correctly, have been carrying his weapon on his neighborhood watch rounds. Having decided, in spite of all of the above, to pursue Martin on foot, he should have clearly identified himself and what his business was.
Any one of those things would have resulted in Martin likely being alive now. Eating skittles and drinking iced tea in his dad’s living room. All of that is on Zimmerman. As I see it.
Martin’s dead now. IANAL but it seems to me that if you cause someone’s death through your own preventable foolishness, you bear some responsibility. Maybe not murder, but something.
Thanks to McT for his response and I’ll try to get something up per his request for the weekend
The NR stgatistics sited by commenters upthread might be right. In fact, I think the stats themsleves are correct. However the stats don’t address the wuestion of wether or not racism was part of Zimmerman’s motivation or whether or not racism negatively effects the lives of black men to a significant degree. What the stats show is that there are other problems faced by black men and black families besides racism and I don’t think anyone denies that.
SUppose someone did a study on shootings of innocent people by people who claimed self defense or claimed to represent the law. SUppose your study broke out the results by race. Then you would have a study with relevant data.
Or maybe you could do a study wherein people were asked to pick out a picture of a criminal and break out their choices by the race of the person doing the picking and the race of who got picked. I think most people are smart enough to beat that sortof test, though.
BC, I can’t help but feel that the evidentiary hearing issue is orthogonal to what I find troubling about the case. (Not your fault BTW, as I understand that the focus of this case has gotten shifted to the stand your ground law).
The police didn’t take their duty to investigate a homicide seriously enough to establish anything other than that Zimmerman claimed it was self defense. If we want to argue about whether or not Zimmerman should have been arrested on the spot (I tend to think yes) I guess that is fine, but the police had a duty not to essentially take him at his word. We are never getting to an evidentary hearing if the police don’t bother gathering the pertinent evidence, and there are lots of indications in this case suggesting that they did not.
McT, I can’t speak for the world of course, but I suspect quite a bit of the outrage is based on our judgments about the risks the victims were taking. A lot of how we operate involves creating filters to avoid having to look closely at things. (This isn’t all, or maybe even mostly bad. We are deluged by information every day. Without a rubric of ‘what to pay attention to’ we wouldn’t be able to function).
A very large percentage of black on black crime revolves around the drug trade, or is dismissible on first review as being related to it. Many of the victims are likely to be written off as “taking the risk” by being associated with the drug trade even if the association is very minor (drug dealer’s lookout’s little brother). I’m not saying it is just to dismiss these deaths. I’m saying that our mental filtering makes it EASY to dismiss these deaths. Many of the others are ancillary victims of the way the drug war plays out. We might see them as unfortunate casualties of the way the system works. (To be clear I don’t see it that way, I’m describing a mindset that I suspect may be common).
Trayvon on the other hand took the risk of buying skittles and wearing a hoodie in the rain. That doesn’t fit well with our dismissive narratives. Even under the most pro-Zimmerman narrative I’ve seen, Trayvon was inappropriately followed and stalked by a white guy, and forced into a confrontation that Trayvon didn’t seek. He was literally a kid getting candy from the store. That doesn’t fit into our easily dismissed categories.
Martin’s dead now.
Which makes it very difficult to get his side of the story, which makes the “stand your ground” law problematic. The winners get to write history, so to speak. Worse yet, it provides some incentive to make sure you win in the most absolute way, at least in a case like the one we’re discussing, so that you’re the only one who really gets to say who was the aggressor.
Best to be the guy with the gun, it seems.
BTW, I want to mention something I didn’t know until today. Florida does have a duty to retreat law, specifically anyone who …”initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself” is excluded from the stand your ground statute. Fla. Stats. 776.041
Which is about the 3rd or 4th reason why the stand your ground statute isn’t a key issue in this case. (Except that Trayvon would have likely been able to use ‘stand your ground’ against Zimmerman if the killing had gone the other way, but you better your ass it would have been investigated).
That doesn’t fit into our easily dismissed categories.
I agree. He also wasn’t in “the hood,” where people tend to think bad sh1t just happens.
Good to know about that statute, Sebastian. That seems like a sensible rule, particularly in a state with a “stand your ground” law.
My understanding of SYG is that it’s basically about home invasions/breakins. Somebody comes to your castle. You have the right to stand and fight. That, in and of itself, works just fine for me. The worry would be applying it in other contexts.
I think duty to flee laws are similar to laws about whether or not you have to physically fight a rape. They impose solitary standards on people unwillingly put into nasty situations. People react differently to horrible situations, and while I freely admit that some reactions aren’t allowable (you can’t hunt someone down and kill them days later for beating you up) I give a lot of leeway to the reactions of the moment for the non-aggressor.
If a woman feels that her best chance is to fight a rapist, that is great, but if she doesn’t think so, that’s ok with me too. I don’t think the law should require hyper-detached reflection at the very moment while you are being sexually assaulted. Having a law which says you must physically resist or it doesn’t count as a rape would be very wrong.
Similarly, if you feel your best chance of survival is fighting off your attacker in a deadly assault, rather than running, I think it is appropriate that the law allow leeway. That is why some of the states which theoretically have a duty to retreat end up severely undermining it by requiring that the retreat available be one of “complete safety”. In practice that means the duty to retreat doesn’t exist unless the attacker has been knocked out or something, in which case even stand your ground states won’t let you continue attacking him.
But in all seriousness, WTF, Florida? Slarti, what’s in the water down there?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/28/2718794/miami-judge-rules-in-stand-your.html
MIAMI — A judge has dismissed a murder charge against a man who chased and fatally stabbed a suspected thief, citing the same self-defense law at the center of the Trayvon Martin case.
The “stand your ground” law gives a lot of leeway to use deadly force instead of retreating during a confrontation.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom ruled Tuesday that a bag of stolen car radios Pedro Roteta swung at Greyston Garcia amounted to a lethal threat. Bloom said Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property.”
Garcia went home instead of calling 911 after the confrontation in January and later hid the knife and sold two of the radios.
BC, I can’t help but feel that the evidentiary hearing issue is orthogonal to what I find troubling about the case . . .
Which is about the 3rd or 4th reason why the stand your ground statute isn’t a key issue in this case.
My understanding of SYG is that it’s basically about home invasions/breakins.
Sebastian:
The way I read it, 776.041 is only applicable if Zimmerman “provokes” the use of force. That depends on what actually happened. If Zimmerman followed Trayvon and asked him what he was doing there, I doubt that alone is legally provocative. Even ignoring the advice of 911 and bringing a legally concealed firearm is not IMO legally provocative. In which case, we are back to SYG. This is especially true of Zimmerman’s account of walking back to his car and getting attacked is accepted. If SYG applies, it explains why the prosecutor is being careful.
Putting that to one side, I was just commenting on the “no arrest=racism” argument. For me, the biggest problem at this point is the epithet in the 911 call. I don’t have to infer racism if he said that because it is right there. I have a concealed carry permit and I don’t want my right to carry impeded by a racist vigilante neighborhood watch guy. I’m still waiting for all the facts, but that’s where I’m headed right now. (Also, learn to take a beating if you decide to carry. That’s part of the deal, IMHO).
Rob:
It’s much more than the castle doctrine (no duty to retreat in your home). That already applied. The new law codified it and removed a requirement that the homeowner had to prove reasonable use of force (it is now presumed if it’s in the home). And SYG added no duty to retreat outside the home as well. If you are not doing anything illegal and are legally where you are allowed to be, you can use deadly force with no duty to retreat if you reasonably believe its necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death.
ABC News has video of Zimmerman at the Sanford PD the night of the shooting. He does not have a drop of blood anywhere on him; and even if he was treated and cleaned up by EMT on scene, there is NO WAY IN HELL that that man has a broken nose. No way, no how.
It’s doubtless my settings on Chrome — probably the ad-blocker — that’s preventing that ABC video link of Phil’s from working for me (as well as all the rest of the ABC videos from some of their pages), but if anyone else has that problem, this and this worked for me, instead.
I have a concealed carry permit and I don’t want my right to carry impeded by a racist vigilante neighborhood watch guy.
I would say that blatant racism is not necessarily clearly proven at this point.
But I’d also say that, were I someone with a concealed carry permit, I would not want my right impeded by a knucklehead vigilante neighborhood watch guy.
I’m not against people owning and carrying guns. But folks who advocate for a liberal reading of the 2nd Amendment (where ‘liberal’ means ‘expansive’, as opposed to ‘liberal’ means ‘Ted Kennedy’) don’t do themselves any favors when they go out of their way to defend irresponsible behavior.
(Also, learn to take a beating if you decide to carry. That’s part of the deal, IMHO).
Rights incur responsibilities.
I’m not against people owning and carrying guns.
Owning guns? Maybe. Defending your “castle”? Maybe. Carrying? No freaking way. What is this, the O.K. corral? Why do people need to carry guns around except to react badly to a surprise situation (or to take the gun someplace to shoot someone?). Sorry, don’t get it.
I’m against carrying guns. If you’re advocating a 2nd amendment principal to have a gun in case you need it in a civil war or something, you really don’t need a carry permit if it gets that far anyway, do you?
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this instance–statistically rare–sparks such outrage (a good deal of it, quite frankly, appearing opportunistically orchestrated), when the hard facts suggest a much larger, much more common problem that no one, particularly those leading the outrage, seem to want to talk about.
Let me take a stab at this as well. (Not that I necessarily think I can do better than the ones above….)
I’f I’m a white kid living in a poor white neighborhood, where the principal activities include petty crime and a couple of motorcycle gangs, and I get killed, that gets not too much attention. At least outside my imediate circle. But if I’m in an upscale (even if not necessarily gated) community and I get killed, that makes a splash.
It makes a splash, in part, precisely because it is statistically rare. As far as the media are concerned, it’s a man-bites-dog situation — it’s rare, so it gets lots of their attention. Which, in turn, gives more people, in more places, a chance to get worked about it.
And if the police appear to do an extremely poor job of investigating the death and the admitted killer, then there is outrage to go with the splash. So this starts out as quite similar, actually. When you add in the history of the local police department (underwhelming, to be kind), and the history of violence of the killer, the outrage at the police malfeasance gets larger.
All this, note, without race coming into the equation. Adding race, specifically the history of race relations (in that part of the country, and within living memory), just gilds the lily.
No WJ. It’s an election year and it’s time to stir up the black vote. That is why this case gets so much attention.
This guy could have been Obama’s son too
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097899,00.html
Not only could he have been Obama’s son in the same sense that Trayvon could have been, but Obama killed this teenager himself because he looked suspicious and he’s a muslim.
But no one really cares. The media won’t cover it. There hasn’t been much if any coverage on liberal blogs.
This Trayvon thing is purely manufactured circus to keep the masses entertained and moving in someone’s desired direction politically.
Surely there’s something broken with a law where both parties to a conflict can viably claim self defense.
(Disagreeing or lying about who started it, sure, but not both being counted the victim and therefore free of consequence).
Shane, the law doesn’t work that way. As I quoted above the original aggressor doesn’t get the protection of ‘stand your ground’.
Yes, thank heavens Trayvon Martin was killed, lest Obama be at risk of losing the black vote to the Republicans.
Preface: ABC News needs to put the “ABC News Exclusive” banner in some other place, so that it doesn’t occlude the person of interest in the video for a decent portion of the clip. That aside: even though the video is of poor quality, it’s hard to see where Zimmerman was badly hurt. Even a broken nose (in the sense that the cartilage was displaced and then popped back in) results in some swelling. His mugshot doesn’t show any visible swelling.
But IANAD.
You’re perfectly free not to carry one. It’s not mandatory!
Then again, it’s hard to see that he has any of Martin’s blood on him, either. Didn’t the shooting occur at close range?
Phil, you must understand that the Obama campaign dispatched Zimmerman (his real name is Dylan; he’s an undercover liberal Jew, out-of-work folksinger last seen working the Occupy movement as a busker, not to keen on the settlements either, it will be learned soon from the usual suspects) to provoke and shoot Martin, himself residing under a pseudonym; HIS real name being Mohammad Hamas, a Palestinian paid via Chinese back channels leading to the DNC to take a bullet.
This election year ploy (or spree, depending on which copy desk sh*thead is making up the headline), originating from the inner sanctums (the President’s daughters’ — midget Iranian agents, the two of them) bedrooms, (underbedcover, with flashlights), of the White House was designed to attack the Republican Party on three fronts.
One: O.K., things went awry. Dylan, a.k.a. Zimmerman, was only supposed to wound Martin, a.k.a Hamas, perhaps paralyze him by severing his spine and causeing him to be a lifelong user addicted to gummint Medicaid Tea Party catheters and Medicare Tea Party scooters who would infiltrate right-wing terror groups (that Obama, he plays the long game, learned it at the knee of H. Rap Brown) down the road, but the immediate take for this election season was to demonstrate what would happen to a poster boy young American with massive pre-existing conditions as he tried to participate in the “healthcare insurance marketplace”, Obama knowing full well that the real murderers in the Republican Party and their hired guns on the Supreme Court would strike down the HRC in full and then immediately begin proceedings against Medicaid and Medicare on the judicial and legislative fronts.
Two: The incident, framed through a Middle Eastern lens would provoke a wider cataclysm in the Mideast, placing Israel’s very existence on the line, a line Obama himself drew decades ago from the arthur ashes of the Reichstag under Herr Hitler.
Ah, yes, the deep game, a catastrophe in the Mideast would drive gasoline prices (driving AND election season) to $15.00 per gallon, catapaulting commie gay sources of power (solar, wind, geothermic) into profitability and forcing Union thugs in Detroit to produce tiny, tiny cars with tricyle pedals, enraging muscle car Republicans and causing their concealed carry holsters (from being hunched over tiny steering wells in their girly cars powered by bee pollen) to chafe their tiny nether regions, causing them to resort to using their wives’ shotguns to scratch themselves in those hard-to-reach places and, of course, go on shooting sprees.
Three: God, that Obama. Get this. Sources now tell me that Martin and Zimmerman were actually gay lovers intent on future nuptials and by feigning a domestic dispute with firepower, they and liberal Hollywood types hoped to lure Republican haters into a violent, full frothing see-what-happens-when-we-permit-the-santity-of-marriage-to-be-sullied rage, which would in turn galvanize even closeted gay Republicans (what other kind is there? truth be told) to turn against their Party and vote liberal and possibly even socialist.
And that’s just skimming the surface of Obama’s plot.
This just in:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=RGR&insttype=Stock
Obama, anticipating his own election as the Bush economy headed south like a 747 out of fuel, purchased millions of dollars of gun manufacturers’ common stock at the very bottom.
The man can read redrum America like a Reconstruction sharecropper could read the looks on southern merchant’s faces (one hand under the counter) when he would go into town for supplies.
“You’re perfectly free not to carry one.”
Martin was too.
Zimmerman and avedis carry.
Why should anyone here NOT carry big honking weaponry knowing people like these guys, with their mindsets and prejudices, are sizing us up as we nibble on our Skittles, while, admittedly, ruminating on how best to socialize medicine.
Every American should carry, especially those among the groups singled out by the Republican Party for attack.
And use, at the slightest provocation. Read their minds and stand your ground.
Census workers during the 2020 Census should carry. Knock on Erick Erickson’s door, guns drawn and fully cocked, because Mr. half-cock admitted peeking through the curtain and motioning for his wife to put down the curling iron and fetch him the shotgun.
You’ve got to be ready for the worst. From the worst.
This is the lesson Zimmerman taught us.
If you haven’t come across it yet, there’s the “where was the outrage over this case” argument floating around now. Somehow, it seems relevant to some people for some reason. I hate people. Well, not you guys, but, like, other people.
I find it instructive that conservatives here immediately started trying to justify Trayvon’s death. I think that tells you all you need to know about modern American conservatism.
Yes, Sebastian and I are absolutely convinced that Trayvon had to die.
Instruct yourself, Frank.
Tried to post this earlier with no success:
HSH – “Worse yet, it provides some incentive to make sure you win in the most absolute way, at least in a case like the one we’re discussing, so that you’re the only one who really gets to say who was the aggressor.”
One of the self defense boards I frequent actually posed this as a question in response to the incident. A number of posters there pointed out the same portion of the law that Seb points to above and many there felt that the law should not alter the need to respond proportionately to a threat but a disturbingly non-trivial number of posters were all in agreement that, given the leeway allowed in this law only a fool would allow the ‘bad guy’ to to testify against him on the witness stand.
Which is to say that while there is a large cross section of second amendment and concealed carry types with varying opinions, this law seems to nudge the more sociopathic element closer to embracing preemptive lethal force.
I’m against carrying guns.
You’re perfectly free not to carry one. It’s not mandatory!
Not totally correct. There are some smaller areas/towns where mandatory packing has been proposed or even introduced. If you do not want to carry a gun when you go outside, you(‘d) have to pay a fee in these locations. This would be of mere anecdotal value, had it not been quoted in the context of the individual healthcare mandate with the purpose to accuse (some) liberals of double standards (‘You oppose this because you dislike guns but at the same time you want to force us to buy insurance the we don’t like. Therefore you are a hypocrite’).
“…. you(‘d) have to pay a fee in these locations.”
Under that tyranny, someone who refused to carry would HAVE to carry in order to defend him- or herself against the tyrant who would attempt to force him or her to pay the fee.
Once that tyrant is dead, you could disarm and resume NOT carrying and thus subject yourself to being followed and shot to death at will by the next legally sanctioned tyrant, who carries.
Slarti- I am willing to note that you and Seb are exceptions here, but having read the whole thread you don’t look representative of conservatives here much less anywhere else.
I’d like to see an example or two of mandatory-carry, if you don’t mind. Thanks in advance!
Some derp of a legislator in Vermont proposed a mandatory gun ownership bill in the state a few years back but it never went anywhere AFAIK. Don’t recall ever seeing a mandatory-carry bill proposed anywhere but it’s not like I slavishly follow this stuff.
I notice Brett hasn’t been back to explain to us how the video showing Zimmerman clearly uninjured with no wounds, no bandages and not a spot of blood on him is evidence of media bias.
The original case is Kennesaw, Georgia(1982). In February 2011 a similar bill was introduced in South Dakota. In between is Greenleaf, Idaho(2007).
According to the NYT the Georgian law seems not to actually get enforced though.
The South Dakota bill is explicitly a riposte to the healthcare mandate (ignoring again that the whole idea is a Republican one constantly promoted since it got introduced to fight Hillarycare and dropped only because the uppity n-word adopted it thereby transubstantiating it from ‘the conservative solution’ into the greatest threat to liberty in the history of the world*).
*hyperbole never gets out of fashion, just listen to the speeches made before the SCOTUS building in the last few days.
Just a small warning. One of the links in the previous post goes to freeperland.
My funky twist on who is conservative and who is not:
When Sebastian and Slart and CCDG and other decent conservative individuals frequenting OBWI answer every question WITH a question containing the word “broccoli”, or I hear their voices raised in celebration at Tea Party/Republican fetes when it is suggested that the uninsured should just die, or that millions of fired and laid-off workers should just starve, or … add your own …. I’ll be happy to lump them in good and hard with the bugs who infest (they do so periodically through history) what used be the Republican Party.
When the current vermin murderous incarnation of the Republican Party, which is not conservative any more than the John Birch Society or the Ku Klux Klan are conservative, just as Hitler was not a Socialist but a murderer, and Stalin’s Communist credentials were only incidental to his murderous legacy, is destroyed by every and any means necessary, Sebastian, Slart, and company can raise up some new conservatives and we can resume a rational, humane panel discussion about what to do regarding our myriad issues.
Just about now, Slart is going to blurt out the word “broccoli” and ruin the effect here.
Give it a few days. 😉
I’m sorry, I was watching Goldfinger. What, now?
“I notice Brett hasn’t been back to explain to us how the video showing Zimmerman clearly uninjured with no wounds, no bandages and not a spot of blood on him is evidence of media bias.”
What, are you talking about this, the video conveniently edited to cut out the parts where the head wound was visible?
What, are you talking about this, the video conveniently edited to cut out the parts where the head wound was visible?
To be honest, I’m seeing a lot of head but not a lot of head wound.
I don’t much care if Zimmerman had a head wound or not, because I don’t think it makes much difference as far as his responsibility in Martin’s death.
But I’m not seeing a lot of damage in the video. Just saying.
I’d like to see an example or two of mandatory-carry, if you don’t mind.
Not really to the point, and not so much mandatory carry as mandatory ownership, but nonetheless a point of historical interest.
Excellent find, russell!
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder, and five pounds of broccoli; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Just a suggestion for an amendment in bold.
broccoli: the vegetable that made america free!
Hahahaha, oh Brett, never change. You are aware that head wounds and broken noses tend to bleed out of all proportion to their severity, right?
Does that look like a dude that has been, less than an hour before, being beaten so severely that he literally feared for his life such that he had to shoot the person beating him? A person that he outweighed by 100 pounds? You’re a freaking engineer, show some common sense.
It’s going to come out that you’ve been played for a chump. I would say I can’t wait, but you’ll never acknowledge it anyway.
Oh, BTW, it is absolutely standard 100% SOP in every police station in the country to wear latex gloves when handling a suspect who is, has been or may be bleeding. Can you point out the latex gloves on the police in that video? KTHXBYE!
Bob Somerby has a link to what I assume is the video that Brett refers to. I didn’t look at Brett’s. But here’s a link to Somerby
link
Read what he says first and then click on his link. You have to wait several minutes before you see the closeup of the back of Zimmerman’s head and yes, there is a pretty big lump there with what looks like a bloody scab or something on it. So yeah, based on that it appears Zimmerman might have been banged on the head.
And it is incredible to see the tape and hear in the background Bashir and his guests saying that there is no evidence of any injury.
This is a shark jumping moment, not that I had any respect for MSNBC anyway (with the exception of Chris Hayes, who shows that it is indeed possible to have intelligent conversation on a network which is otherwise not much better than Fox.)
Which is not to say that I think Zimmerman is an innocent. I’ve not paid that much attention, frankly, figuring that you can’t trust the media in these cases until the dust settles, but my impression is that he’s probably a gung-ho gun-toting moron who got himself in a completely unnecessary situation (whatever the details) and ended up killing a kid.
Phil,
not trying to call you out, but your last three comments lead me to offer everyone a suggestion to reduce the temp a bit. If we all try not to post comments in quick succession, I think we will give a little more space for people to participate. When I find myself posting something that I just had to get in 2 or 3 minutes after a previous comment, it is usually a sign that I’m not very organized in my reaction, and I need to slow down a bit. It is not just a case of letting Brett having his say, I think there are probably other people who fundamentally agree with you who might be more willing to enter in if we turned down the heat a bit. Thanks.
As for mandatory weapon ownership, I think it would pass constitutional muster evn today, if a few extra conditions were met. I would not support any such thing but that does not change my legal opinion (while not being a lawyer, constitutional or otherwise). Ironically I think those extra conditions would be vehemently opposed by the usual suspects including but not limited to the NRA. Those would be:
1.Reintroduction of the militia system or a modified general draft
2.Regulation of the choice of weapon the citizen must own (because it has to be compatible to the militia standard)
3.Registration of said weapon combined with strict responsibility of the owner for any abuse
4.A hardship clause for those that cannot afford to buy said weapon from their own funds (so either the state would have to provide it for the needy or at least subsidize the purchase).
My eardrums would burst from a few thousand miles away from the cries of ‘tyranny’ from the Right alone (joined by large parts of the left and those that simply abhor the idea of being forced to serve).
Radley Balko has a post about a recent incident in Texas. Tow cops started following a black man for no apparent reason. (It’s just an amazing coincidence that he was driving in a white neighborhood). They followed him to the driveway of the house where he lived. There with guns drawn they connfronted him. They had run his license and “accidently” came up with the misinformation that the car was stolen. (It wasn’t. The car was his.). When his mother and father came out to fhte house the cops werer confrtational with them, too. One cop pushed the mother. The man got shot but not killed.
That would be here, for the curious.
I’d like to expand my eariler suggestion that “antagonize and shoot” be the new term for “stand your ground” by applying “antagonize and shoot” to an entire class of laws and legal doctrines, which would, of course, still cover “stand your ground” laws while also including certain instances of qualified immunity (and who knows what else in these United States of America). Then there’s “shoot and come up with an excuse afterwards.” In those cases, you can skip the antagonizing. I don’t know if “shoot and use a standard excuse” is a special subclass of that last one or a class unto itself. I guess they’re all “shoot and get away with it” in the end.