by russell
hey, what the hell, i'll go there.
i'm not, remotely, surprised by the verdict. i'm also not particularly sure it should have gone any other way. murder, of whatever degree, is a heavy charge, and really deserves ironclad proof.
when the evidence is one person's word against another's, and the other guy is dead, ironclad is hard to come by.
manslaughter, less cut and dry, but still deserves strong proof.
unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a criminal statute against being a raving wannabe mall cop asshole with a gun who needlessly provokes a fight and then kills the other guy. emphasis on unfortunately.
so, the outcome is what it is.
anybody want to lay odds on whether zimmerman loses his concealed carry license over this? you're a fool if you bet on 'yes'.
what i feel totally confident in saying is that if martin was white, he'd be alive today.
I think it has to be noted that there is no, zip, zero, zilch, even nada, evidence that Zimmerman did squat to “provoke” Martin. This was the prosecution’s argument, the prosecution lost the case, and with good reason.
Try to open your mind to the possibility that Treyvon Martin, far from being some kind of innocent victim, was a thug who picked the wrong person to attempt to beat to death. It might be an unsatisfying conclusion, but it has the merits of being consistent with the evidence.
Oh for Christ’s sake. Literally. For the sake of Christ, try to open your mind to the possibility that it doesn’t matter if Trayvvon was a thug of or not.
Zimmerman confronted Trayvon for no reason. Trayvon ran.
The cops told Zimmerman not to chase him.
Zimmerman chased anyway.
And, evidently, caught up with Trayvon.
That makes Zimmerman the aggressor. There i9sn’t any intellectually ho0nest way to justfy Zimmerman even being on the same block as Trayvon, since he should have stayed in his vehicle as he was advised.
Zimmerman chased Trayvon. He didn’t have to do that.
That makes Zimmerman the aggressor regardless of Tryavon’s nature as a person and ragrdless of who was winning the fist fight that resulted from Zimmerman’s attack on Trayvon.
And Zimmerman, the one who brought about the fight by chasing and catching trayvon,is also the one who shot Trayvon.
But we are swupposed to change the subject away from Zimmerman’s actions, and speculate on Tryavon’s character, so as to foerm some kind of distorted reality that defies the chaser, catcher and shooter as the victim.
Thwere is absolutely no possiblity that there would ahve been an innocent verdict of the races had been reversed.
I hope Trayvon’s family sues Zimmerman into abject poverty.
Very likely, both sides were in the wrong. Both sides lost. One side lost big. The other side isn’t out of the woods yet.
Right on, Laura Koerbeer.
This post is straight up bullshit. If GZ had stayed in his car, TM would still be alive. Should’ve been manslaughter at least.
I think it has to be noted that there is no, zip, zero, zilch, even nada, evidence that Zimmerman did squat to “provoke” Martin.
“Zip, zero, zilch, even nada” basically means there was no eye witness to the event. It’s the word of Zimmerman vs the non-existent word of a dead kid.
So, we’re left with whatever other information is available.
The other information that is available is that Zimmerman noticed Martin, assumed apparently based on the fact that he was a black kid in a hoodie that he was up to some kind of mischief, and then followed him first in his car and then on foot, eventually approaching close enough for them to get into the fight that ended in Martin’s death.
You follow me around my own neighborhood in your car, continue doing so after I try to flee, then leave your car and approach me on foot, and I’m likely to assume ill intent. YMMV.
Note that (a) Martin was walking home to his father’s house from a convenience store, and (b) Martin attempted to flee, as noted by Zimmerman himself. I.e., “he’s running”.
Don’t tell me WTF I need to open my mind to.
Very likely, both sides were in the wrong.
We know that Zimmerman was wrong. Martin was not a criminal, was not on drugs, was not checking out the neighborhood for opportunities to rape and pillage.
He was walking to his father’s house, from a convenience store.
The rest of your statement, in it’s entirety, is 100% conjecture. There is no basis for it in the evidence available.
If GZ had stayed in his car, TM would still be alive.
If GZ had done any of a number of things, TM would still be alive. Briefly, if GZ has used his f***ing head, TM would still be alive.
Should’ve been manslaughter at least.
Unclear. Here are the conditions for justifiable use of force under FL law. If the jury believes that any of these apply in the killing of TM, then GZ cannot be found guilty of manslaughter.
If the jury believes that any of these apply in the killing of TM, then GZ cannot be found guilty of manslaughter.
IMO, Zimmerman did not meet his burden of proof for self defense, unless he was allowed, under Florida law, to make someone else fear for his life, thus provoking a violent “self-defense” response from Martin, and then was allowed to use “self-defense” to kill him.
I find it very hard to believe that if Martin had been a white teenager, Zimmerman wouldn’t have been convicted. Obviously, we’ll never know. It’s incredibly sad to think that an unarmed kid can be shot to death by a vigilante who’s ignoring police instructions to leave the kid alone, and the vigilante isn’t punished for it.
Would somebody please send a black guy to Brett’s neighborhood and have him follow Brett around at night?
On second thought, forget it. Brett is a white guy with a gun. No matter what happened, Brett would be legally innocent of any charges arising from the shooting death of either one of them. So the experiment would be pointless.
–TP
Let me get this straight. George Zimmerman, who stalked and killed an unarmed stranger, frightens me. If I went to Florida – which heaven forfend, because the whole state frightens me – would I therefore be justified in shooting George Zimmerman, because I fear for my life?
If you can get him to throw the first punch, have no witnesses around to counter your testimony, and get a lawyer who’ll find a way to get your testimony out in the court without you ever taking the stand? Yes.
Also, from what I understand, and have at least casually confirmed with lawyer friends who didn’t want to give me “legal advice™”, Florida’s self-defense statutes require the state to prove it wasn’t self-defense, rather than requiring the defendant to prove it was self-defense.
So my general thought is – legally correct, if ethically/morally wrong decision; but that’s the price we pay for having a legal system – there will people who will get away with doing unethical/immoral activities that are not illegal.
And in contrast to the woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot, we are reminded that if you are going to fire your weapon in self-defense, shoot to kill. Or as friends of mine blackly jokes years ago in different circumstances, “No survivors means no witnesses.”
Two things are beyond any reasonable doubt:
1) Zimmerman lied; a lot.
2) His defense attorney acts like an digestive rear exit of the first order
Unfortunately, neither in itself counted as a proof of guilt in the eyes of the jury.
From what I concluded from the presented evidence, I would have voted for manslaughter. Although personally I strongly suspect that GZ acted with murderous intent, the circumstances were muddy (and got muddied) enough to leave enough doubt to not meet the legal criteria for 2nd degree murder. I am not well versed enough in the differences between the legal statutes in Florida and Germany but I am pretty sure that GZ’s behaviour would have met the manslaughter criteria over here easily under the header of ‘excessive self defense’ even under the ‘pro reo’ assumption that it was actual self-defense.
I follow the prosecution in their argument that the event cannot (physically) have happened in the way it got presented by the defense. The defense in their successful attempt to smear TM went at least one lie to far there.
Independent of the facts of the case (innocence or guilt), I wish I could hit that defense attorney in the face repeatedly. I did not appreciate some of the ‘mellerdramma’ on the prosecutor side either but that’s part of the trade in jury trials and did not go to the sewers (in those parts that I saw at least).
As an aside, the whole case worked as a perfect Rohrschach test saying more about the multitude of commenters (esp. in the media) than about the case itself. That includes some on ‘my’ side too.
“Zimmerman confronted Trayvon for no reason. Trayvon ran.
The cops told Zimmerman not to chase him.
Zimmerman chased anyway.
And, evidently, caught up with Trayvon.{”
Riiight. Older out of shape fat guy caught up with running younger athlete. Followed up by a vicious beating to his knuckles with his nose, cleverly bouncing his head off the pavement for extra force.
The only, literally the ONLY, reason you’ve got for thinking Martin innocent, and Zimmerman the aggressor, is their respective skin colors. That’s it. Your prejudices are on display for the whole world to see.
AND, I repeat, you’re just assuming the prosecution case is true, and the prosecution LOST. Why aren’t you willing to consider the conclusion the evidence points to: That Zimmerman stopped when asked to, (Not that he had any legal obligation to, mind.) and Martin doubled around and assaulted him?
It really is what the evidence points to, your prejudices aside.
If you, as it seems to me, subscribe to the idea that there would have been no trial if GZ had been black, then I consider any further discussion as futile.
And if GZ had been black and TM white there would have been an endless drumbeat on the net and in the media for a swift trial followed by execution. Claiming otherwise would be ridiculous (That GZ’s lawyer insinuated exactly that is (imo) Exhibit A in my low opinion of him).
Zimmerman stopped when asked to
no he didn’t.
I think it has to be noted that there is no, zip, zero, zilch, even nada, evidence that Zimmerman did squat to “provoke” Martin.
Stalking doesn’t count, I guess?
But I have a question for the non-rabid posters here. Zimmerman’s attorney is now pronouncing Trayvon Martin as a gun runner and drug dealer. Can his parents take him to court for defamation? Is there any recourse at all from these kind of disgusting statements?
No evidence of “stalking”, either. But, no, “stalking”, AKA following somebody, even if he HAD done that, was not a legal excuse for Martin to assault him.
And, of course they could take him to court over those statements. At which point he’d be able to produce all the evidence, barred from his murder trial, that the statements are true. So they’d be fools to do so, but, yes, they can act like fools.
Zimmerman stopped when asked to, (Not that he had any legal obligation to, mind.) and Martin doubled around and assaulted him?
What we know from the recording of Zimmerman’s call to the police:
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, “he’s running.” The dispatcher asked, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, “yeah,” the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responded, “Okay.
The rest of the narrative comes from Zimmerman, who is not a disinterested witness.
Further, Zimmerman’s claims could be true in every particular, and he would still be a vigilante asshole who provoked an encounter than ended in the death of a young man who was simply walking home from the convenience store.
Innocent of murder, but not of being an irresponsible dick.
In Florida, he will almost certainly retain his license for concealed carry, because that’s how folks there roll.
Your prejudices are on display for the whole world to see.
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
In the last week, we’ve seen Zimmerman acquitted of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.
We’ve also seen Marissa Alexander, having been granted a protective order against her husband, sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shots to prevent his beating her.
Zimmerman – white, in a tan sort of way.
Martin and Alexander – black.
I observe, from the plain facts available in the public record, that the law and the wheels of justice operate differently for people who are black, than for people who are not black.
It’s an observation, not an opinion or a feeling, and it’s drawn from simple evidence, not my imagination.
So don’t give me any shit about prejudice. You’re the guy drawing conclusions based on bullshit, not me.
No evidence of “stalking”, either.
Then please explain just exactly what it was that Zimmerman was doing using your “proven” information, of course.
“Further, Zimmerman’s claims could be true in every particular, and he would still be a vigilante asshole who provoked an encounter than ended in the death of a young man who was simply walking home from the convenience store.”
So, basically, you figure Zimmerman is guilty, and Martin innocent, simply because you think there shouldn’t be neighborhood watchs or concealed carry permits. And nevermind that Martin, with entirely inadequate provocation, attacked Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had not shot him, he’d either be dead or maybe crippled. He’s got to be guilty because you don’t like the laws Florida has democratically adopted due to your personal values not beind widely shared.
And, I will point out that Martin was a burglar, stolen goods from local burglaries had been found in his school locker, so it’s entirely possible Zimmerman was right, and Martin was casing the neighborhood to commit more burglaries.
But none of that matters, because your higher concerns trump the details of the actual circumstances.
Try to open your mind to the possibility that Treyvon Martin, far from being some kind of innocent victim, was a thug who picked the wrong person to attempt to beat to death.
Reflecting your language and attitude back at you, do you mean the same guy who cried like a little girl on that tape and who lied about his finances hoping to flee the country? That upstanding man of courage and conviction?
“Then please explain just exactly what it was that Zimmerman was doing using your “proven” information, of course.”
He was a member of the neighborhood watch, in his own neighborhood, and he had every right to be there, and be walking around, and to not be subjected to a vicious beating for being where he was entitled to be.
Even if you don’t like white guys walking around at night in their own neighborhoods if black guys are present.
you figure Zimmerman is guilty, and Martin innocent
First of all, as I think I’ve made clear throughout, I don’t figure Zimmerman is guilty. Not of murder, likely not of manslaughter.
I think he’s guilty of being a reckless irresponsible wanna-be cop idiot, who needlessly provoked a confrontation that ended in the death of a kid walking home from the convenience store.
I’m not sure what Martin would be innocent or guilty of, to the best of my knowledge he was not on trial.
What’s the most damning possible thing that could be alleged of him? He responded to some guy he didn’t know following him around his father’s neighborhood, in a car and on foot, by confronting the guy and getting into a fight?
That’s called ‘stand your ground’. Sadly for him, he wasn’t armed.
I have no problem with concealed carry permits, or with neighborhood watch programs. What I expect is for folks who carry a firearm and/or participate in neighborhood watch programs to behave responsibly, follow the direction of the police when it is provided, and not create situations that end up with other people dead.
Martin, with entirely inadequate provocation, attacked Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had not shot him, he’d either be dead or maybe crippled.
Outside of Zimmerman’s own statements, there is exactly zero evidence for these claims. Zero. Not one shred.
Your point of view is based on your faith in Zimmerman’s credibility.
It’s Zimmerman’s word against the dead guy’s, and the dead guy can’t talk.
I will point out that Martin was a burglar
I will point out that Zimmerman was arrested for fighting with cops, and had a restraining order taken out against him by his fiancee.
Any other things to point out?
It’s entirely possible Zimmerman was right, and Martin was casing the neighborhood to commit more burglaries.
It’s entirely possible that monkeys will fly out of my @ss.
“Zimmerman confronted Trayvon for no reason. Trayvon ran.
The cops told Zimmerman not to chase him.
Zimmerman chased anyway.
And, evidently, caught up with Trayvon.{”
Riiight. Older out of shape fat guy caught up with running younger athlete.
Nope basis for your sarcasm. That’s the eveidence everyone (except you, apparently) agrees on. It’s int he call to the cops, for one thing. And Zimmerman did some of his chasing in a car.
I think you have a prejudice going here, Brett. Not a skin color one. Just a belief that no matter how ridiculous, no matter how fact-free, no mattter how convoluted and dishonest, the rightwing party line has to be correct. You are reasoning from a faith-based assumption and ignoring reality.
Whether or not Trayvon Martin was a burglar, George Zimmerman had no way of knowing anything about it or anything else about Trayvon Martin, other than that he was walking around under Zimmerman’s watch. Or are you assuming Martin was in the act of burglary when Zimmerman saw him, and that Zimmerman simply decided not to mention it?
And, Brett, be honest. Do you think Zimmerman wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot if he were black?
I imagine Zimmerman is walking around right now, his meaty, sweaty hand clutching an automatic, his wild-eyes scanning the night-time roadside for more law-breaking perps, ready to dispense more “justice”.
Since there have been some suggestions that people open their minds to things, I’d suggest opening one’s (or Brett’s) mind to the idea that right and wrong or innocence and guilt are not zero-sum affairs, such that Martin’s being wrong to some degree necessitates that Zimmerman is right to the same degree.
Perhaps Martin overreacted to Zimmerman’s pursuit. And maybe Zimmerman rightly feared for his life when he shot Martin. That doesn’t mean Zimmerman didn’t needlessly and irresponsibly precipitate the whole situation, thereby deserving some of the blame for Martin’s death. (And let’s not forget that Martin is the dead one, and that Zimmerman is the one still alive.)
That’s some imagination you have, there.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman “chased” Martin. There is no evidence that the “police” told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. There is evidence that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not follow Martin.
There is evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman repeatedly. There is no evidence that Martin sustained any injuries prior to being shot. Martin is 6’2″. I don’t know how tall Zimmerman is. There is evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him repeatedly.
The idea that Martin was provoked is primarily speculation. More to the point, ‘provocation’ is ambiguously broad. Because there is no evidence that Martin sustained any injuries prior to being shot, the reasonable inference is that, whatever provocation Zimmerman offered fell far short of actually striking a blow, producing the far more likely inference that the first blows were landed by Marin. Zimmerman was struck repeatedly prior to being shot.
We recently moved into a transitional neighborhood. Our garage was burglarized during our move in. I own a pistol (two in fact). If I were to see someone who appeared out of place behaving in a manner that seemed out of place (for example, loitering, instead of walking on the sidewalk to some destination), I would keep an eye on that person–in addition to calling the police–and I would let that person know he/she was being watched. If that person chose to escalate at that point, something bad could happen.
The fact that that person might choose to escalate is some indication of who I might be dealing with, i.e. a not nice person. His/her skin color would be a matter of supreme indifference to me.
What is truly awful about this situation is that so many on the left viewed the trial as a formality–Zimmerman was conclusively presumed to be guilty and the jury’s refusal to go along with this is just further evidence of a an unjust, racially biased system. Russell excepted, much of the left’s respect for the rule of law here and in other cases is disgustingly one-sided.
McKenny, while you are right that a disparcher, not the epolice themselves, told Z he didn’t need to continue the cdhase, you are mistaken abou the rest.
There would have been no incident if Z had simply gone on his way after the dispatcher told him to leave off.
He followed T who was running away. No matter how you slice it, that’s chaaing.
That also makes Z the aggressor. It also means Z was not standing HIS ground. His ground was back at the orignal point where, from his vehicle , he first saw T.
If T had been the aggressor, the incident would have gone something like this: Z says something to T, T attacks truck, maybe tries to open door, Z accellerates ahead, but T keeps coming, Z shoots T.
But that is not how it happened.
It happened the other way around. No escalation would have occured if Z had not chased T.
No escalation would have occurred if Z had not caught up with T.
And Z didn’t have to do any of that.
The fact that the fight, once started (because of Z’s actions) might have been won by T, just shows that in Florida black teenagers don’t get to stand THEIR ground.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/07/15/2297541/self-defense-zimmerman/
Three cases where the ethnicities are revdersed.
he was walking around under Zimmerman’s watch
This gives an overbroad meaning to ‘under his watch’. Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol when he saw Martin, he was running a personal errand.
If I were to see someone who appeared out of place behaving in a manner that seemed out of place
How would you respond if someone was following you through your neighborhood, first in a car, then on foot?
What is most telling to me is that Zimmerman saw a kid wearing a hoodie walking through his neighborhood and came to the ‘out of place’ conclusion, absent any other information or evidence. Sufficiently so that he thought tailing the kid and calling the cops was the necessary response.
If you are looking for ‘prejudice’, there it is.
Here’s something from a lawyer that is more or less along the lines of what russell wrote. It appears to have been written before the trial, but it pretty well accounts for facts coming to light and changing things.
For the most part, there weren’t many facts brought to light that contradicted Zimmerman’s version of things, so it’s kind of moot, anyway. But I still think Zimmerman’s a stinking pile of sh*t, even if his version of the story is true.
This gives an overbroad meaning to ‘under his watch’.
Sure. Tell that to Zimmerman. 😉
P.S. I appear to be in moderation on a previous comment.
Fixed, hsh.
It appears to come down to this: If you are in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, and there are no witnesses (eye witnesses or cameras) to a killing, proving murder will essentially be impossible. And that is what I believe we saw here: a Scottish verdict (“not proven”).
I look to see a flood of Stand Your Ground defenses across all of the states with such laws. Successful ones — any defense lawyer who does not cite Zimmerman in such circumstances will have to be reckoned incompetent.
Well, at least it will delight the NRA to have being armed to defend yourself become a matter of necessity, since the law will be impotent.
Proving murder is impossible everywhere without evidence that a murder occurred.
I would say that this particular case would be difficult to make anywhere. But IANAL.
Hairshirt, that was a very interesting and illuminating link, so thank you.
That Florida law is just plain dangerous.
It seems ridiculous to me that someone could provoke a fight and then claim “stand your ground” because they are losing.
As Scott Lemiuex explains here, this case has nothing to do with stand your ground laws. The defence never invoked that law. They didn’t need to.
Under Florida law, once Zimmerman claimed self-defense, the state couldn’t prosecute him unless they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not engaged in self-defense. Since Zimmerman killed the only witness who could do that, he walked.
Stand your ground was not used as a defense in this case, Laura, so I am really wondering what you are talking about.
I imagine Zimmerman is walking around right now,
i imagine Zimmerman is too busy weighing offers from various wingnut grifting firms, to see which of them can turn him into the most lucrative wingnut celeb-du-jour he can be. there are obviouly enough people ready to swallow whatever he says that he can make some big cash, if he just packages himself the right way.
i’m betting he’ll have a book by Christmas, a coincident promotion tour, and maybe a recurring ‘urban criminality expert’ spot on the wingnut fleecing circuit.
(i wonder what kind “but [lefty X] did something similar once, so neenerneeenerneeener!” replies this will get)
But, but, but, his lawyer said that GZ will never again be able to walk the streets because he can expect a lynch mob behind every corner. All of that for just shooting someone while not being black. Or in short bullsh|t defending batsh|t.
as is so often the case, Ta-Nehisi says everything I might want to say, only better.
FIFY
Lifted from the comments at Turb’s link:
From the jury instructions, page 12:
Obviously stand your ground was important to the judge, and this paragraph defined the limits of what the jury could consider. Florida is a shoot first, shoot to kill state, the jury was obligated to ground their decision in that fact.
If this is correct, the judge invoked “stand your ground” whether the defense did or not.
“Florida is a shoot first, shoot to kill state”
Did you miss the, “and was attacked” bit? Florida is an “attacked first, and only then can you shoot” state. I stand by my position: Based on the available evidence, all Martin had to have done, to have survived that evening, was to have not launched an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman. Unless you think Martin beat Zimmerman up AFTER being shot, Martin was the attacker. Not Zimmerman.
So what could Zimmerman have done differently to avoid shooting Martin, Brett? Were Zimmerman’s actions necessary? Were they wise? Do you think he did a good thing that night, all told?
Why is it that you think Martin went after him, anyway?
I think Trayvon attacked him because he was a creepy-ass cracka.
Or so earwitness testimony has it, anyway.
Russell: “when the evidence is one person’s word against another’s, and the other guy is dead, ironclad is hard to come by.”
By that standard, when one guy is dead and the other claims self-defense, there should be very, very few convictions. I don’t have the stats, but I don’t think that that’s the case.
Brett: “Try to open your mind to the possibility that Treyvon Martin, far from being some kind of innocent victim, was a thug who picked the wrong person to attempt to beat to death. It might be an unsatisfying conclusion, but it has the merits of being consistent with the evidence.”
In your definitiion of ‘merits’ ‘being’ ‘consistent’ and ‘evidence’, yes.
launched an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman.
oh fer fnck’s sake, it wasn’t unprovoked.
Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong, and had no reason to expect to be followed, in a car and on foot, by an unknown person with unknown intent. and yet he was followed. anyone would feel threatened in such a situation.
one wonders why “conservatives” insist on starting the story in the middle. well, no, one doesn’t wonder.
I think Trayvon attacked him because he was a creepy-ass cracka.
I suspect Martin encountered a fair number of creepy-ass crackas in the normal course of his daily life, without demonstrating any particular inclination to lay a beating on any of them.
Perhaps there’s more to it than that.
By that standard, when one guy is dead and the other claims self-defense, there should be very, very few convictions.
This needs further refinement.
When one guy is dead, and the other claims self-defense and displays the effects of a beating, and there are no eye witnesses, and the jurisdiction is the state of Florida.
And, lest we forget, victim is black, shooter is not.
I’m not sure how many convictions that set of filters would yield.
Doubtless because of teh racism.
So, did Martin run away, or not?
Doubtless because of teh racism.
maybe you should have that argument with someone who shows an interest in having it, instead of trying to provoke it in those who don’t.
Possibly making the arguments that you’re making would be a good way to avoid getting into these exchanges.
Being more guilty of the same kind of difficult-to-interpret snark, I realize that this is potkettleblacking.
But speaking for myself, I have absolutely no idea what meaning was supposed to be conveyed by “well, no, one doesn’t wonder.”
One bit of speculation I can’t seem to resist regards whether or not Zimmerman would have pursued Martin as closely or for as long had Zimmerman not been carrying a pistol. I can’t help but think there’s a strong likelihood that, were Zimmerman unarmed, not only would Martin be alive today, but Zimmerman wouldn’t have put himself in a situation requiring him to defend himself in the first place.
No getting out of truck. No beat down. No shooting.
and I would let that person know he/she was being watched.
is this before or after you follow them around, in car and on foot, for a number of minutes, despite having been told by law enforcement to knock it off?
Didn’t happen.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
It’s always nice to know what the 911 dispatcher doesn’t need, but that’s not the same as “being told by law enforcement to knock it off”.
it’s close enough. the dispatcher, being the interface between the public and the responders, works for the responders in order to help the responders help the caller. and odds are good that they know far more about these kinds of situations, and what’s likely to lead to a better outcome, than the caller does.
if you choose to go against what the dispatcher asks, at the very least, you’re probably complicating the responders’ job. irresponsibly.
McKT wrote:
“Zimmerman was struck repeatedly prior to being shot.”
🙂
I definitely want McKT as my defense attorney after I dispense a little citizen justice.
I expect that’s a typo, but nevertheless I instruct the jury to disregard that statement, along with ex post facto rumors that Trayvon Martin was a gunrunner and drug pusher, just as I instructed jurors in the Nicole Simpson murder case to strike from their minds OJ Simpson’s statement that he had been enraged with jealousy repeatedly prior to being stabbed multiple times.
While we’re at it, counselors, please don’t let me hear you referring in my courtroom to George Zimmerman’s police record, including domestic violence, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, and speeding, and lest you believe the charge of speeding is more irrelevant in this case than the other charges on his record, please hold in your mind, and then expel from your mind, the relevant irrelevancy that in response to the idea, stated upthread, that all Zimmerman had to do to avoid the armed confrontation was remain in his car to await a police presence, or better that he should not have been carrying a loaded weapon, the usual suspect frequent to these pages would have responded that Zimmerman could just as well have placed the car into gear and run (speeding all the way) Martin over, perhaps repeatedly, including shoving the thing into reverse and backing over the “f*cking punk” repeatedly for good measure, an automobile being just as deadly a weapon as a gun.
In regard to the domestic violence charge against Zimmerman, please also ignore thoughts that may enter your minds that had Zimmerman spotted Martin’s mother walking suspiciously and skittishly in the neighborhood and begun following her against a police dispatcher’s instructions, which, as inferenced here, the 911 dispatcher presumably was not authorized nor even given any training by law enforcement to give, having made up the instructions on the fly (if had been a fire and the caller had expressed a desire to pour gasoline on it, the dispatcher probably should keep his or her biases out of it about what is needed or not) and further had Martin’s mother become suspicious and been provoked by Zimmerman’s actions and assumed intentions, as Zimmerman was of her actions and assumed intentions, she would have been justified in defending herself by proactive violence, including throwing him to the ground and shooting the f&cker in the head, especially had she heard rumors months after the incident that Zimmerman was an alleged abuser of females,
Or, maybe not.
Please also disregard the strange case of the alleged gunrunner, Martin, who oddly enough neglected to run guns to himself, at least on that fateful day, and disregard the equally strange case of the gun possesser, Zimmerman, who had guns run to himself by the largest, most prolific, well-connected gunrunners in the United States, including the NRA, Gun Owner’s of America, and the rest of the usual suspects.
Normally I would say that there was one too many guns in possession that awful day, but I’m going to open my mind and take a fresh perspective and assert that there were too FEW guns on the scene.
Since there are never too many guns in America, Martin should have held up his end of the bargain and been carrying too.
That way he could have used his own gun to shoot Zimmerman for the latter’s assumed menacing behavior and simultaneously Zimmerman, with his own gun, could have shot Martin for his assumed menacing and they could have avoided altogether the f&cking, goddamned, m*therf*cking alleged struggle over the single gun present that day.
Then we wouldn’t have any witnesses to the incident, except for Brett, who was there that day, and thus even more non-existent facts to chew over.
Sharing never works with guns, I’ve found.
But wait. If two guns on the scene would have comported with the views of the gunrunners, why … a THIRD gun would have been even better.
Mine.
Say, I had come along that day in Florida and witnessed Martin and Zimmerman in a prone clutch on the sidewalk, fighting over a single gun, or worse … or is it better … let me check the Constitution, struggling each with own gun pointing it at the other.
Here’s where my third gun would have come into play. Not being able to ascertain what was what and who was the original aggressor, I would, after some off-the-cuff back of the envelope first impressions that I was dealing with probably a thuggish looking kid and an illegal alien who was receiving food stamps at the behest of oppressive nutrition providers (if it had been two white guys in suits rolling around on the sidewalk I would have let it go, figuring maybe they both were in the right, based on various biases which I pretend I don’t have) and after a judicious clearing of the throat and a couple of gallons of testosterone gushing from my ears and nose, getting my gun all wet (I carry a spare, because four guns are better than three and so on) and after a GomerBarney-like high-pitched warning to break it up or I’ll shoot, and after the two of them shot me complicit looks of “mind your own business or we’ll take a break from our nonsense and kick YOUR ass” and to prevent the possible murder of one by the other or of both by both, I too would have ignored the dispatcher in my mind and, well, shot both of them, so we’d have two dead f*ckers, in self-defense with copious bed, bath but not beyond shadows of doubt and of course, my expert witness testimony, if I chose to take the stand.
Because, under the same three-is-better- than-two-is-better-than-one rule of the gun, two dead f*ckers are better than one.
Guns aren’t the problem, don’t you know.
Trying to have a knock-down, drag-out fist fight with a sorry officious pussy who doesn’t know how to have a knock-down drag-out fist fight but has to resort to a gun is the problem.
I don’t have any problem with the suggestion that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly. What I have a problem with is the mythology that says Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of law enforcement, and is through some complex sequence of logical maneuverings therefore a murderer.
“oh fer fnck’s sake, it wasn’t unprovoked.”
Let me clue you in on something which is widely understood outside liberal circles: Being followed is not sufficient provocation to justify assaulting somebody. Not even remotely. People are legally entitled to walk on the same path as you, in the same direction.
Brett: Being followed is not sufficient provocation to justify assaulting somebody. Not even remotely. People are legally entitled to walk on the same path as you, in the same direction.
Well, the Florida statute seems to contemplate that you can be an “aggressor”* without doing anything illegal, it seems you merely must have done the initial provoking.* Which would lead me to consider what constitutes the reasonable belief of the “imminent use of unlawful violence” under Florida law.
That is to say, if you reasonably believe that the imminent use of unlawful violence is about to be used upon you, you can defend yourself. It says nothing about whether that belief is developed based upon lawful or unlawful conduct.*
*There, of course, may be some general definition of “aggressor” and “provoke” elsewhere in the Florida code that I’m not aware of.
edit: note that in the second link of my 2:52pm above, the statute uses “force” not “violence” despite my quoting it.
People are legally entitled to walk on the same path as you, in the same direction.
having the legal right to tread the same ground as another person is completely fncking irrelevant to the fact that the average individual can generally tell when he/she is actually being followed, as opposed to having a coincidental stroll about the neighborhood. and most people, if they know themselves to be completely innocent of any reason to warrant following, are going to feel threatened when followed, at night, by an unknown person.
are you really unable to see this?
Being followed is not sufficient provocation to justify assaulting somebody.
Guess what, Brett – if Trayvon Martin had simply beat George Zimmerman’s ass, sans being shot to death, I don’t think we’d be discussing this at all, even if Trayvon Martin were charged, tried and convicted of assault and battery. No one would be saying it’s okay to kick someone’s ass just because he had followed and/or chased you, so long as you could get away. But that doesn’t mean that following or chasing someone isn’t provoking.
The problem I and I think other people have is that Zimmerman has no criminal culpability whatsoever for the death of Trayvon Martin. I’m okay with him not being a murderer, strictly speaking, but I’m not okay with him behaving in a strange and threatening manner – while carrying a loaded pistol – and provoking (yes, provoking) a response that requires him to shoot someone to death to avoid an ass-beating, only to be convicted of nothing.
It appears to come down to this: If you are in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, and there are no witnesses (eye witnesses or cameras) to a killing, proving murder will essentially be impossible.
Yes, except I suspect that this sort of resolution will only happen in particular circumstances. When a black mugger claims that the white victim he was caught on camera stalking turned on him and became the aggressor once they got off-camera, and the mugger shot him in self-defense… well, let’s just say that 1)I bet the trial will be short and the sentence long 2)I bet Brett won’t be telling us how the only logical conclusion is that the mugger was attacked.
It’s always nice to know what the 911 dispatcher doesn’t need, but that’s not the same as “being told by law enforcement to knock it off”.
I understand that the dispatchers avoid giving orders unless circumstances are extreme, in order to avoid liability. Nitpicking aside, Zimmerman was advised by the authorities that he shouldn’t pursue, and he chose to do so anyway. This isn’t illegal, but it does demonstrate a strong desire to chase and confront Martin. Whereas Martin showed a strong desire to escape pursuit.
The idea that Martin was provoked is primarily speculation. More to the point, ‘provocation’ is ambiguously broad. Because there is no evidence that Martin sustained any injuries prior to being shot, the reasonable inference is that, whatever provocation Zimmerman offered fell far short of actually striking a blow, producing the far more likely inference that the first blows were landed by Marin. Zimmerman was struck repeatedly prior to being shot.
The provocation could easily have been a tackle, push, grapple, glancing blow, blow to the body, or even a missed blow. It could have been a verbal threat of an imminent nature.
So no, there’s not a reasonable inference that Martin started the fight. Given that Zimmerman pursued Martin and Martin attempted to evade him, there’s a reasonable inference that Zimmerman *continued* to be the aggressor, rather than their roles reversing the moment that Zimmerman becomes the sole remaining witness.
I own a pistol (two in fact). If I were to see someone who appeared out of place behaving in a manner that seemed out of place (for example, loitering, instead of walking on the sidewalk to some destination), I would keep an eye on that person–in addition to calling the police–and I would let that person know he/she was being watched. If that person chose to escalate at that point, something bad could happen.
Remind me not to
be black while walking to the convenience storeloiter in your neighborhood then. But you might want to keep your kids indoors just in case any of your neighbors get the same idea. But then, your kidsaren’t blackdon’t loiter, do they? So no worries.Bluntly: the evidence is *consistent* with Martin switching from a kid getting Skittles to a cold-blooded killer the moment that Zimmerman became the only witness. It is also *consistent* with Zimmerman chasing Martin down, attempting to subdue or assult him, and shooting him in the ensuing struggle. It is also *consistent* with Zimmerman wanting to shoot someone from the get-go. There just isn’t that much physical/eyewitness evidence here to pin down a story.
But there isn’t any reason for anyone (other than Zimmerman’s defense team) to conclude that it’s *likely* that Zimmerman tried to retreat and Martin transformed into a killer the moment that Zimmerman became the only witness. At least, the only reason I can see is ugly. And similar to the reason that none of those doing so imagine themselves or their kids as Martin- wrong color to have to worry about that kind of thing.
Slart: What I have a problem with is the mythology that says Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of law enforcement, and is through some complex sequence of logical maneuverings therefore a murderer.
People who carry guns around the neighborhood, looking for people who might be doing bad stuff, are sometimes called vigilantes. If vigilante justice is what we want, we should all live under a legal regime like Florida’s.
hairshirthedonist: I can’t help but think there’s a strong likelihood that, were Zimmerman unarmed, not only would Martin be alive today, but Zimmerman wouldn’t have put himself in a situation requiring him to defend himself in the first place.
This. The fact that our society thinks it’s fine for people be allowed to walk around with guns looking for confrontation, rather than calling on trained police, is very screwed up.
I have no problem either with the suggestion that Martin acted irresponsibly, as did Zimmerman.
Two numbskulls, let’s posit, given the dearth of witnesses and the desire to be open to all possibilities free of bias, and one gun.
I have no problem with the proposition that had it been two numbskulls minus the gun, in this particular case, we’d still have two numbskulls around, both worse for the wear and after various charges to one or the other or both, who could reconsider and perhaps seek redemption for their respective behaviors.
hairshirthedonist is right about the singular presence of the weapon.
“complex sequence of logical maneuverings”
In law school, I think that’s referred to as “omplexcay equencesay foay ogicallay aneuveringsay”, otherwise known as law and precedent. Judge Antonio Scalia refers to it, in his manner, as his opinion.
I’ll bet the NSA could follow Brett on the same path in the same direction in such a way that sapient would be assaulted by Rand Paul.
I hope no one is carrying so it could be a good clean fight.
I’ve seen Brett walk and even the Three Stooges wouldn’t want to walk this way, even with a “please”.
“complex series of logical maneuverings”
I’ve used those words from time to time myself, except that they came out as “I know in my gut that OJ murdered Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman’ and most recently as “George Zimmerman’s story is shot through with bullsh*t.”
The problem I and I think other people have is that Zimmerman has no criminal culpability whatsoever for the death of Trayvon Martin.
I don’t even go that far.
I’d be happy to see him liable for civil penalties.
I’d be happy for Zimmerman to lose his concealed carry license, because he has demonstrated himself to be an irresponsible idiot.
I’d be happy to have anyone, anywhere who supports Zimmerman’s acquittal at least acknowledge that his pursuit of Martin was unnecessary and, at a minimum, ill-considered and foolish.
I’d be happy to have anyone, anywhere who supports Zimmerman’s acquittal at least acknowledge the obvious reality that Martin’s race was relevant to his being singled out by Zimmerman for suspicion.
And I’d be happy to have anyone, anywhere who supports Zimmerman’s acquittal at least acknowledge the obvious reality that the criminal justice system has different outcomes for black people than it does for folks who aren’t black.
If Martin was white I doubt that Zimmerman would have noticed him at all. Now he’s dead, and Zimmerman has not only been acquitted, he’s something of a folk hero.
Saturday night, when the verdict was returned, I was on a gig at a local bar. Somebody got the news of the verdict on their cell phone, the word spread around, and there was a big round of thumbs up and smiles.
These are people I know and work with. I had no idea what to say to them. I did not, and did not want to, understand what the hell they were thinking.
It was really sad, and really depressing, and kind of disgusting. It made me ashamed to be in the same room as those people, and it made me ashamed of this country. It made me ashamed to be a human being, frankly.
I don’t really have a big problem with the acquittal per se. I have a big problem with living in a world where a kid can’t go to the store without having some racist asshole harrass him and ultimately shoot him in the heart. All because he’s black and wears a hoodie.
And if you don’t think that’s where all of this crap started, you need to pay better attention.
What. russell. Said.
DecidedFenceSitter: “If you can get him to throw the first punch, have no witnesses around to counter your testimony, and get a lawyer who’ll find a way to get your testimony out in the court without you ever taking the stand? Yes.”
And we have no evidence whatsoever that Trayon threw the first punch.
So, if I’m being followed relentlessly on the same path in the same direction, that’s O.K., but if I stop momentarily to smell the roses and the follower stops too and studies his nails in a patently forced manner, which one of us is loitering?
Let’s say Trayvon, instead walking or running away from George, had instead turned the tables and started following the latter, just following not confronting.
Add in the gun in Zimmerman’s possession. Or Trayvon’s for that matter.
Then what?
What if, unknown to either, both had been Neighborhood Watch adventurers, both with weapons, and had played cat and mouse all night with a blaze of gunfire lighting up the dawn.
Methinks Zimmerman still gets the first shot in, for reasons Russell states.
Going forward, as Zimmerman’s agent, while I counsel a low profile and at least a public mien of mock repentance for being so irresponsible, and turning his concealed weapon into the local police station because look what happens, I’m afraid my client is set to join Mark Fuhrman on the pundit circuit with FOX News and he is considering requests from stage prop Steven Seagal to join the latter on armed citizen patrol in Arizona to harass people who look just like George and maybe join a group of sociopaths along the Southern border to mutually masturbate each other without firing a shot.
He’s also been asked to take up residence under Ann Coulter’s skirt to help her wax ecstatic on the O’Reilly Hour even when she’s not in the mood.
As for what Russell says, whenever he says it I just want to give up talking altogether.
“It’s always nice to know what the 911 dispatcher doesn’t need, but that’s not the same as “being told by law enforcement to knock it off”.”
Posted by: Slartibartfast | July 15, 2013 at 02:16 PM
Actually, it is.
Count-me-in: “Two numbskulls, let’s posit, given the dearth of witnesses and the desire to be open to all possibilities free of bias, and one gun.”
No, since we have (a) positive evidence that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and (b) no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was looking for trouble.
Carleton Wu: “Yes, except I suspect that this sort of resolution will only happen in particular circumstances. When a black mugger claims that the white victim he was caught on camera stalking turned on him and became the aggressor once they got off-camera, and the mugger shot him in self-defense… well, let’s just say that 1)I bet the trial will be short and the sentence long 2)I bet Brett won’t be telling us how the only logical conclusion is that the mugger was attacked.”
When the armed black man is caught with an unarmed dead white guy, and no witnesses or cameras, I’m sure that the result would be just the same because America and Justice.
Actually, no. The Sanford 911 dispatcher is a civilian that works for all of the local emergency services. Which is why they ask you, starting out, whether you have a medical emergency.
The first words the dispatcher spoke to Zimmerman were: “Do you need police, fire or medical?”
But that’s nearly beside the point. The point is this (I know I’m repeating myself, but apparently it’s needed): “we don’t need you to do that” in no way equates to “I instruct you not to do that”. Even if you wish very very hard for it to.
Barry, I’m with you, but at this point in the thread I’m so open minded that I’m entertaining the notion that Zimmerman was the one murdered/manslaughtered and Martin is out walking the streets now.
But even if Trayvon was looking for trouble he was going about it gunless, which seems highly unprepared (breaks numerous rules in the NRA handbook) if you are in the trouble game or not, not to mention law-abiding, unlike Zimmerman who was looking for trouble on the same path in the same direction but with a weapon, which I deem a complex series of logical maneuvering in the search for trouble, although some call it law-abiding as well.
as is so often the case, Ta-Nehisi says everything I might want to say, only better.
That is a gut wrenching piece of writing that all here should read. And you did a damned good job yourself, Russell. Thanks.
For those still playing the “Trayvon had it coming” game, because of his alleged past and character, this viewpoint https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151774324452329
may be salutary.
Or not.
“we don’t need you to do that”
Who is “we” kimosabe?
And nevermind that Martin, with entirely inadequate provocation, attacked Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had not shot him, he’d either be dead or maybe crippled. He’s got to be guilty because you don’t like the laws Florida has democratically adopted due to your personal values not beind widely shared.
There is no evidence as to who attacked who. Other than the inferential evidence that Zimmerman was the agressive pursuer up until he becomes the only eyewitness. And the girlfriend who heard Zimmerman confront Martin (which would make Zimmerman’s claim to have been jumped a lie). It’s genuinely weird that you keep stating this as a fact, as if it were caught on tape.
There is even less evidence that Zimmerman would’ve been ‘dead or maybe crippled’ if he hadn’t fired. He hit his head on the sidewalk; it’s possible that Martin slammed his head on the sidewalk, it’s possible that Zimmerman grabbed Martin and hit his head when they both fell. Or a bunch of other scenarios. It’s genuinely weird that you’ve made a fact out of Zimmerman’s mortal danger when people get in (or even start) fights all of the time without anyone getting killed.
And, I will point out that Martin was a burglar, stolen goods from local burglaries had been found in his school locker, so it’s entirely possible Zimmerman was right, and Martin was casing the neighborhood to commit more burglaries.
And I will point out that Zimmerman had no way of knowing what Martin had in his locker, and that it appears undisputed that Martin went to the corner store for some Skittles for a family member. It’s genuinely weird that you’ve invented a criminal motive for Martin.
But none of that matters, because your higher concerns trump the details of the actual circumstances.
The details are not what you apparently think they are. You’ve got all kinds of speculation and outright fantasy turned into facts in your head. For some reason.
Try to open your mind to the possibility that Treyvon Martin, far from being some kind of innocent victim, was a thug who picked the wrong person to attempt to beat to death.
And this is the cherry on top. Martin picked the wrong person? Like Zimmerman was just minding his biz when Martin decides to take a break from the game, gives an obviously fabricated excuse about Skilles, and starts pretending to case the neighborhood until he lures in an unsuspecting armed neighborhood watch guy, so that Martin can pretend to flee while suckering him in for the death-beating. Heck, there’s probly a dozen neighborhood watch bodies buried in the Martins’ backyard, he’s probably been at this for a while.
You can just tell from looking at the picture. No, not the skin- it’s the *eyes*, the cold eyes of a killer. Right?
Slart wrote:
‘But that’s nearly beside the point. The point is this (I know I’m repeating myself, but apparently it’s needed): “we don’t need you to do that” in no way equates to “I instruct you not to do that”.’
Well, alright already, 911 dispatchers should free their responses of all ironic phrasing and tones of voice to make sure the dimwitted literalists out there remain on point.
Other 911 responses that should be tightened up:
Caller: I’ve found an unexploded WWII bomb in my back garden! I’m off to dismantle it and isolate the explosive materials.
911 Dispatcher: Well, knock yourself out dumbsh*t, but if I were you, I’d wear earplugs.
Caller: My full-grown pet crocodile has eaten my dog and is starting in on the children.
911 Dispatcher: Sir, this is the third time this year you’ve reported this type of incident. So, you’ve run out of hamburger and chum again or weren’t we clear the first time?
Caller: I’m going to kill myself here in a minute. What I want to know from you is: poison or crossbow?
911 Dispatcher: Let me connect you with the morgue, but in the time remaining, can I interest you in some funeral insurance?
Caller: I’m literally on fire from head to toe. I’ve heard drinking gasoline can douse the flames. Advice?
911 Dispatcher: Only if you gargle first, hot pants.
Maybe this for the Zimmerman’s of the world:
Caller: Suspect (does a fake walky-talky static noise with his mouth for “realism”) is leaving the scene at a high rate of foot speed with a look in his eye. I’m pursuing to interdict with firepower. Ten Four!
911 Dispatcher (putting a finer point on it to enhance public understanding): Listen to me, troubleseeker, this is outside my pay grade, but how about instead I personally come down there, handcuff and gag you, and permanently conceal that weapon up your self important wazoo! Do not, I repeat, do not think that I’m humoring you by saying we don’t need you to do that! Observe from a distance until uniforms arrive on the scene.
Caller: So, you’re rogering that I am to pursue the suspect, do I read you? Over and out. Damn these Samsung walkie-talkie thingys ….. (fakes more radio static with his mouth) .. I’m losing you here!
911 Dispatcher: There will be some rogering alright, but not like you think!
To be very cynical, GZ’s lawyer is in essence already preparing the defense for GZ’s next self-defense shooting of somebody, telling intervievers that he (GZ) needs that gun now more than ever because so many people hate him now and that from today he will always (have to) wear a bullet proof vest because you know…
I have the feeling that this makes it actually more likely that someone will try (which I do not condone in any way). It would be better, if the world would never hear from GZ again. Actively turning him into both a victim and a hero and (in a way) preparing for the exploitation of his upcoming martyrdom stinks of self-fulfilling prophecy. What I also smell is utter disappointment that there were NO race riots after the acquittal as had been predicted for some time by (among others) Fox News.
The point is this (I know I’m repeating myself, but apparently it’s needed): “we don’t need you to do that” in no way equates to “I instruct you not to do that”.’
This seems like a defense against Zimmerman being accused of violating a direct police command. It does not mitigate the inferences about Zimmerman’s state of mind based on his ignoring the dispatcher’s ‘suggestion’- he was pursuing Martin and seeking out a confrontation even when emergency services was already aware of the situation (such as it was).
These assholes, they always get away -Zimmerman, after shooting Martin, explaining why he pursued him
“Saturday night, when the verdict was returned, I was on a gig at a local bar. Somebody got the news of the verdict on their cell phone, the word spread around, and there was a big round of thumbs up and smiles.”
That’s really sick and depressing. But not surprising.
“The details are not what you apparently think they are. You’ve got all kinds of speculation and outright fantasy turned into facts in your head. For some reason.”
This is true of almost every comment in this thread, starting with Russell, oddly. Other than the standard extrapolation of almost any event that involves a black person into a universal truth, Coates gets it about right.
There is real evidence of a few things.
First, Zimmerman took his neighborhood watch duties (on duty or not)pretty seriously and was frustrated by what he felt was a string of petty crimes that went unpunished in the neighborhood. I can introduce you to four or five people just like that in the neighborhood watch for my 500 house development. Each of them has followed a kid who lives here back to his house, with no incident. This is profiling based on age, dress, demeanor,but not race,(and in NONE of the 911 conversations presented in the courtroom did it seem that Zimmerman was using race as a criteria)
Second, Martin got freaked out by a neighborhood watch guy following him. Completely, unnecessarily freaked out, causing him to actually act guilty.
Third they then had an encounter, that could have been avoided by either person pretty easily, that had an abominable and tragic outcome.
Fourth, race did play a part. Trayvon was unreasonably afraid of the creepy a$$ cracker, thus escalating the situation unnecessarily. Keeping in mind that he had no reason to believe that Zimmerman was a threat of any kind, except he profiled him and:
Trayvon might have been told (by his parent)that there was a neighborhood watch, if he knew there was on he might have had a different reaction.
Trayvon should have been told that if the neighborhood watch was following him to stop and answer any questions they might have.
All of those things are pretty obviously supported by the facts.
So, who’s to blame? From the beginning I have felt that the parents didn’t properly prepare their kid for one of the most normal things that happens in the neighborhood, to kids of all races.
And just to put myself completely in this, I have followed kids that weren’t from my neighborhood until I determined where they were going or they left the neighborhood lots more than once in the last thirty years. If they had started running I certainly would have considered it more important to figure out what they were up to.
And a couple of times they were arrested because they had done something wrong, based on me knowing where they went.
And no, none of them were black.
Second, Martin got freaked out by a neighborhood watch guy following him. Completely, unnecessarily freaked out, causing him to actually act guilty.
First, I don’t see anything unnecessarily about getting freaked out by some creeper following you. Nor is there anything guilty about trying to get away from said creeper.
Maybe you tell your kids “if some guy starts following you slowly in a car, dont’ try to get away from them. And if you do, and they get out and pursue- just remember the most important thing is not to act suspicious. They are probably friendly yet overenthusiastic Neighborhood Watch people!” I will be telling my kids something slightly different.
Third they then had an encounter, that could have been avoided by either person pretty easily, that had an abominable and tragic outcome.
Martin could’ve avoided this by- what? Not ‘overreacting’ to the weird guy following him in a car and then getting out to chase after him?
Trayvon should have been told that if the neighborhood watch was following him to stop and answer any questions they might have.
Again, Im imaging the conversations you are supposedly having with your kids about Stranger Danger. “Don’t be afraid of strangers, even if they’re acting creepy as hell, they are probably friendly *unless* you try to get away, then they’ll &$^&ing gun you down- but daddy won’t cry because it’ll be mostly your fault for running from the nice people.”
And just to put myself completely in this, I have followed kids that weren’t from my neighborhood until I determined where they were going or they left the neighborhood lots more than once in the last thirty years. If they had started running I certainly would have considered it more important to figure out what they were up to.
And you, of course, know that you haven’t ever sexually assaulted any kids, are mentally stable, etc. The kids you’re chasing *do not know that*. I would tell my kids to *stay the hell away* from unknown adults who start shadowing or following them. Do not engage, do not respond to their commands, do not stop to talk unless you’re sure you’re in a safe space with plenty of other people.
Did you shoot any of them with no eyewitnesses present? 😉
Has anyone made a reasoned statement about whether TM was aware that his pursuer was a neighbourhood watch guy [that’s meant as a serious question, not sarcasm].
I would tell my kids to *stay the hell away* from unknown adults who start shadowing or following them. Do not engage, do not respond to their commands, do not stop to talk unless you’re sure you’re in a safe space with plenty of other people.
Especially in the dark.
I agree that we don’t know some of the things that happened here, which is why the jury may have come back with a not guilty verdict. But in the Internet court of law, I’m saying this: Neighborhood watch people who are armed (which I think is bs), who follow people, should at the very least stay in their car and call the cops if they think something is wrong. Confronting people who they think are up to no good, or shooting them (especially shooting them), is not okay. Period. Call the cops.
Oops, I guess I’m coming down in favor of the authoritarian government yet again.
“Especially in the dark.”
Well, my conversations with my 17 year old, who might walk to a convenience store, would be different than my 13 year old who would not be out after dark.
It would involve staying on the main roads, not stopping but not running, and trying to establish if it was neighborhood watch if there was a well it corner. It would NOT involve cutting through other peoples yards as he runs away.
Well, my conversations with my 17 year old, who might walk to a convenience store, would be different than my 13 year old who would not be out after dark.
Sadly, it would never have occurred to me to have a conversation with children about “walking around the neighborhood.” In face, I was a child once, and I never had a conversation with my parents about “walking around the neighborhood” or in what situations I would be shot if I were merely walking home from the nearby convenience store (which I did many times).
This just in
Juror B37’s identity may still be a secret, but she’s already got an agent peddling her as-yet unwritten book.
On Monday, a literary agent in Washington state announced that she was representing one of the six female jurors who found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
“My hope is that people will read Juror B37’s future book, written with her attorney husband, and understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial and how important, despite one’s personal viewpoints, it is to follow the letter of the law,” Sharlene Martin, president of Martin Literary Management, said in a statement. “The reader will also learn why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions.”
The statement was issued less than 48 hours after the controversial verdict was reached.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3501867/zimmerman-juror-to-write-book.html
Marty: I have followed kids that weren’t from my neighborhood until I determined where they were going or they left the neighborhood lots more than once in the last thirty years.
In the dark? If so, how did you know they weren’t from your neighborhood in the dark? And, what constitutes “your neighborhood”?
Marty: It would involve staying on the main roads, not stopping but not running, and trying to establish if it was neighborhood watch if there was a well it corner. It would NOT involve cutting through other peoples yards as he runs away.
“Cutting through other peoples yards?” Seriously? So, run in a straight line?
Marty,
You write, “Coates gets it about right.”(This, I take it, is meant as some kind of compliment? Some compliment.)
You then follow this with: “…..race did play a part. Trayvon was unreasonably (wtf?-ed) afraid of the creepy a$$ cracker, thus escalating (wtfII?-ed) the situation unnecessarily(wtfIII?-ed).”
One can only conclude that you did not either read or comprehend what Coates actually wrote, or you have disgorged some really poorly written parody.
Which is it?
Coates gets it about right.
As per usual.
At any point in any of the recorded conversations, during some of which Martin was at least within hailing distance, did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch?
How the hell would Martin have any idea who Zimmerman was, or what he was about?
How uncomfortable or freaked out ought he to have been, when some guy who he did not know and who did not identify himself first watches him from a car, pulls over and parks the car to continue watching him, then when he runs away, leaves the car to follow him?
I’m not 17, and that would freak me out more than mildly. I’d want to know WTF was going on.
I have no problem saying that Martin would have done well to just walk away and go home.
I have yet to hear anyone supportive of Zimmerman’s actions or acquittal express any sense that he owns any responsibility for Martin’s death.
Martin should have done X, Y, or Z. His parents should have told him there was a neighborhood watch and that he should respond to anyone following him around with politeness and respect. Martin shouldn’t have been wearing a hoodie. Martin should have walked on the sidewalk.
Dig this: Zimmerman should have sat in his car and waited for the cops to come.
We actually have an account of the very beginning of the confrontation, in the form of Martin’s friends cell phone conversation with him. According to her, it began as:
“What are you following me for?”
“What are you doing around here?”
That’s not what Zimmerman reported as the initial exchange. Either she is lying, or he is. If he is, there’s not one damned thing wrong with Martin’s response. And, if she’s telling the truth, Zimmerman is a damned liar, and in fact a perjurer.
He said, she said. The tie-breaking bit of information is lost to us, because the other witness is dead.
I can also tell you as someone who has lived in questionable neighborhoods, and been followed for unknown reasons by people I did not know and did not care to get to know, that the last freaking thing you do in that situation is go home. If you go home, person X now knows where you live.
So, there’s that.
I have no idea what Martin was thinking when he confronted Zimmerman. None of us do, because he’s not here anymore to let us know.
But by god the onus is not on Martin’s ghost to freaking justify why he asked some random guy, who did not identify himself or apparently give any clue as to his motive, and who was first watching Martin from a car and then, after Martin clearly attempted to flee, followed him on foot, why he was following him.
Zimmerman could simply have replied, “I’m with the neighborhood watch, I did not recognize you, there have been some burglaries and I wanted to know who you were”.
He did not.
Martin was 17 and Zimmerman was 28. It’s not unreasonable to expect Zimmerman, Mr. Responsible Neighborhood Watch dude and cop wanna-be, to have acted like an adult.
Seriously, the kid is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. Any of your neighborhood watch buddies kill any kids lately?
Zimmerman was not, in my view, guilty of either murder or manslaughter, but he by god owns some responsibility for Martin’s death.
In addition to Russell’s points, would it be too much to ask that Zimmerman and company use rubber bullets in the weapons they so dearly need to conceal or brandish, or whatever lifts the skirts.
See here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Vigilante_Nation
… for commentary about our vigilante culture in which you will find a further link to a brief news article reporting that 80 protestors of the Zimmerman verdict in L.A. were dispersed with rubber bullets for walking on the same path in the same direction as other people.
I would guess the fact that the word “rubber” is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights is why we can’t have nice things.
It occurs to me that the politicians (liberal politicians should be armed at all times in this country) in the summer of 2010 who hosted public forums on the health care bill only to have armed vigilantes show up might have, like Zimmerman’s paranoia about Martin, found the vigilantes’ behavior suspicious, threatening, out of place in a civilized setting and therefore reason to monitor, follow, and confront and maybe those vigilantes would have ended up gunned down like f*cking vermin dogs for their untoward, irresponsible actions, because I have a feeling the vigilante individuals would have escalated things had someone gotten in their face, leading to their unfortunate but necessary slaughter.
You know what’s scary? The utter predictability of this thread, that’s what.
I am not “profiling” anybody here. I’m simply refusing to pretend that I did not foresee Brett, Marty, Slarti, or McTx viewing the case entirely differently from Russell, hairshirt, Laura, or the Count, to name but a few.
One thing we could all probably agree on is this: George Zimmerman is exactly the kind of person that all of us would call a “responsible gun owner”.
–TP
Tony, that’s why I called the whole thing a perfect Rohrschach test.
Btw, didn’t you miss a “‘nt” or do the quotes carry the meaning (or the ‘responsible’)? 😉
Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old “kid” (as Zimmerman called him) who had walked to a 7-11 store, purchased two items, and walked towards home carrying a can of fruit drink in a beige plastic 7-11 bag, all the while talking to a friend on his cell phone. He was wearing a dark gray hooded sweatshirt over a gray t-shirt, khaki plants, and white sneakers.
It was dark, because it was winter; otherwise, it was 7:00 on a Sunday evening, with intermittent rain showers and downpours. Once reaching the neighborhood, he walked in the street because there’s very little street-side pavement; as is natural, he’d look around while walking (as Zimmerman would regularly do while walking his dog), and he’d stop, get out of the way, and watch as cars drove by.
He was walking “leisurely,” “casually” in the rain, “looking around at the houses” (which later turned into “looking into the houses”); not particularly in a hurry to get out the rain, and, as Zimmerman later added, looking like he was picking up mail.
According to the friend he was speaking with, he took shelter in the covered mailbox kiosk (adjacent to the clubhouse) during a sudden downpour.
He then told his friend that a man was sitting in his truck and staring at him. He decided to continue walking home, cautiously passing the truck (and probably keeping an eye on the man staring at him), and walking faster when the man turned his truck to slowly drive behind him. Despite his friend telling him to run, he waited to do so until he reached a spot where a vehicle could not follow him.
Trayvon ran away from the man who had sat and stared at him, and who had driven close behind him. We have no idea which route Trayvon took; according to Zimmerman, he ran down the sidewalk between two grassy areas behind several rows of townhomes on both sides, heading southward. According to Trayvon’s friend, he stopped running, breathing hard, and then slowly walked, from wherever he was, towards home. He noticed that the man, now on foot, was once again following him. Now tired and near home, he asked the man, “Why are you following me?;” to which the man demanded, “What are you doing here?” And then there was the sound of Trayvon hitting the ground, his earphones falling off and the sound of something hitting his Android phone, with the words “get off, get off.”
72 seconds later Trayvon Martin was killed with a single shot to the heart.
Oh, look, Zimmerman ending up with a broken nose, two black eyes, and contusions to the back of the head elided.
Martin having contusions to the knuckles, and one gunshot wound, and no other injuries, elided.
Eye witness seeing Martin on top elided.
Martin hitting the ground added. Martin having grass stains only on his knees, Zimmerman having grass stains on back, elided.
Basically, what I see here, is an alternate history where Zimmerman attacked Martin, with all the evidence proving it’s BS elided, and evidence supporting it fabricated out of whole cloth.
Now, I suppose this work of fantasy is sincerely believed, an absolutely incredible amount of work has gone into actively misleading the public about what happened here, in the interest of turning this into a hate crime by Zimmerman, and Martin into some kind of innocent victim. Because that has a lot of political use.
But a fantasy is what it is, and Zimmerman is a free man, (Albeit a free man under numerous death threats.) today because the defense systematically took that fantasy apart in the courtroom.
What he lacks is any way of disassembling it in the public square, alas.
and yet Brett still can’t admit that Zimmerman started, precipitated, escalated and yes, caused, the entire incident. Brett insists the story starts in the middle, where meek innocent Zimmerman has to fight off the unprovoked and gleefully murderous assailant.
but at least he doesn’t believe in a “fantasy”.
I don’t mean to interrupt Brett’s fantasy here, but just a question: How does a guy who is pinned on his back getting the sh*t pounded out of him by his assailant raining down blow after blow from above, pull the pistol from wherever it is holstered? What was the GZ testimony on that? Anybody know?
Do carry on. Thanks.
Posted by: cleek
“and yet Brett still can’t admit that Zimmerman started, precipitated, escalated and yes, caused, the entire incident. Brett insists the story starts in the middle, where meek innocent Zimmerman has to fight off the unprovoked and gleefully murderous assailant.
but at least he doesn’t believe in a “fantasy”.”
Brett is a wonder; every time I think that he’s hit rock-bottom, he pulls out a drill and digs like a mutant gopher.
Because that has a lot of political use.
As opposed to, for instance, the narrative of Zimmerman as blameless neighborhood watch good neighbor and reluctant but righteous marksman.
EIther guy could have walked away. One guy was a 17 year old kid, one guy was an almost 30 year old married adult man. One guy was armed with an iced tea, one with a pistol.
One guy was minding his own business, and one was not.
I don’t dispute the finding of not guilty on 2nd degree murder, or frankly on manslaughter. But the idea that Zimmerman has no responsibility for the death of Martin I find abhorrent.
What is Martin guilty of? Confronting and getting into a fight with a guy who stalked him around his father’s neighborhood, a guy who did not identify himself or make clear to Martin, in any way, what he was about. That’s what Martin is guilty of.
Why did Martin have grass stains only on the front of his pants, and Zimmerman on his back? Why did Zimmerman have more wounds?
Because Martin was kicking his @ss. Zimmerman picked the wrong kid to harrass. And, if certain details of the situation were slightly different, you all would find his actions righteous and would applaud them.
Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol. He was going to the grocery store. He saw a kid walking through the neighborhood, and for Some Mysterious Reason, thought the kid was ‘suspicious’ and needed following. Because he was ‘looking at houses’.
Or, you know, ‘not walking on the sidewalk’. Or ‘wearing a hoodie’. Something like that.
Had Zimmerman actually been on a neighborhood watch patrol, and actually followed neighborhood watch protocol, he would not have left his car, he would not have been carrying his firearm, he would not have gotten into a fight with Martin, and Martin would be alive. And, Zimmerman would not have spent the last year and some months wondering if he would spend some decades in jail.
It would have been a win/win.
But clearly, the entire responsibility for Martin’s death lies with Martin.
Here’s my plan, Brett.
I’m going to come to your neighborhood and follow your kid around. I will not address your kid at any point to explain what I’m doing or why I’m doing it, and if your kid is unnerved by this and runs away, I will follow your kid around on foot so I can see where your kid goes.
I’ll do the same for Marty’s kid, or McK’s kid, or Slarti’s kids. I’m gonna come to your neighborhoods and, without identifying myself or explaining what I’m doing or why, I’m going to follow your kids around. And they damned well better not wear hoodies or walk anywhere but on the sidewalk, especially if it’s after dark.
I’m sure none of you will find anything objectionable in this.
Seriously, what kind of people are you all?
You all are so concerned that Martin not become the poster boy for some kind of politically correct BS that you find it impossible to acknowledge Zimmerman’s responsibility here.
Martin was not some freaking Mau-Mau Black Panther gang-banging hoodlum. He was a kid walking home from the 7/11.
Zimmerman was not some 2nd Amendment neighborhood watch hero, defending his turf from some dire threat. He was a meddling stupid knucklehead cop wanna-be who had to dive in, in spite of clear direction from the 9-11 dispatcher that that was neither required nor wanted. And, as a neighborhood watch leader, he ought to have known that it was not proper protocol, or any kind of good idea.
He f***ed up and as a result he ended up killing a kid. If you can’t acknowledge that simple, obvious, salient fact, I don’t understand how your mind works.
Hartmut,
No, I didn’t skip an “n’t” — I really do think both sides would call Zimmerman a responsible gun owner. I think he’s the NRA’s idea of a responsible gun owner, and I know he’s my idea of a responsible gun owner.
Responsible gun owners sometimes, regrettably and regretfully, kill people. (Remember, “Guns, don’t kill people …”) Sometimes, the NRA types tell us, responsible gun owners kill bad guys in self-defense. As a responsible gun owner, you never know when some black dude will start beating the crap out of you for no reason. As a responsible gun owner, you have the right to stalk bad guys in the dark, just like we all do. As a responsible gun owner, you can count on other responsible gun owners to see the inkblot exactly as you see it.
Responsible gun owner George Zimmerman did exactly what any responsible gun owner would do if he got into a fist-fight with the big, bad, black kid he was chasing. If any of our responsible gun owner friends care to dispute that, I welcome their input.
–TP
Even if I take Zimmerman’s account of things, along with the 911-call records, Zimmerman is still a stinking pile of sh*t. No fantasy required.
Any aspects of what actually happened that deviate from Zimmerman’s story can reasonably be assumed to make him even more of a stinking pile of sh*t, since he wouldn’t lie, fabricate or fantasize to make himself look any worse.
The 5:34 AM comment above is taken entirely from Trayvon Martin’s point of view – pehaps because his point of view was largely lost, with his being unable to describe it, being dead and all.
In any case, Trayvon Martin does not have to be entirely innocent for George Zimmerman to be in the wrong. So that particular fantasy is not one I personally have any need for to think what I think about Zimmerman. But thanks for attributing it to me, anyway, Brett.
POlitical use for what? Acknnowledging that we still have problems with race relations? Acknowledging that the stand your ground laws are stupid and dangerous?
Why would anyone NOT want to acknowlege those things?
Russell continues to express my opinions precisely.
Laura’s comment reminded me of a question I asked much eariler in the thread, one I never got an answer to:
And, Brett, be honest. Do you think Zimmerman wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot if he were black?
Well????
“EIther guy could have walked away.”
It’s unclear to me how Zimmerman was supposed to have walked away, after being knocked to the ground in a surprise attack. No doubt, there was a moment when, if he had walked away, the whole episode wouldn’t have happened.
But why should he? Was he any place he wasn’t entitled to be? No. Why is Martin allowed to take a walk at night, but Zimmerman is supposed to turn around and run like hell if he sees a black kid?
Here’s the question: Why am I supposed to assume Zimmerman’s account of what went down is wrong, when it has the advantage of being consistent with both the physical evidence, and testimony from the closest witness?
What I see are people grasping at any straw to avoid admitting that the black kid brought this on himself by assaulting somebody. That’s just another form of predjudice.
Russell wrote:
“Zimmerman was not on a neighborhood watch patrol. He was going to the grocery store.”
Speaking of elisions, this is a part of the story I missed.
First, I wonder if the grocery store he was heading to posted prohibitions on concealed carry in their establishment, as the law permits in Florida I believe, and I wonder if Zimmerman would have stowed his weapon in his car before entering.
I wish Zimmerman had not seen Martin on his way to my grocery store and the incident had not happened. Martin, unlike Zimmerman, to his credit, did not enter the convenience store to buy an iced tea and candy while bearing a loaded weapon.
No, I wish Zimmerman had made it to MY grocery store and I would hope I would notice the gun bulge on his person (maybe he would drop it clumsily on the floor as he bent over to grab a package of Skittles, perchance to shoplift). I would find the carrying of a gun on my property around my inventory and my employees to be highly suspicious, deeply threatening, and reason for an intervention, as in, “Sir, I notice you’re carrying a weapon on my property. Is it loaded as well? Yes, well … the law says what? F*ck that law and f*ck you. If you ever enter my establishment again, with or without a deadly weapon, you and I will retire to the grassy knoll across the street and I will have grass stains on the front of my clothes and you will have grass stains on your ample rear and the back of your head will meet the sidewalk with some force.
Did I just see your hand jerk towards that gun bulge as I explained your immediate future to you? Go ahead, pull that thing out, tough guy. Call the cops too and I suggest you follow to the letter their instructions.
What? You say the Founders gave you the right to carry in my establishment, sign or no sign? How bout this, I’ll dress up like Samuel Adams and then kick your ass with my bare hands, because I find your suspicious and threatening.
Now, you have four seconds to remove yourself and your weapon from my establishment.
See here for the Florida concealed carry law:
http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Read the comments and notice how many concealed carry afficianados admit to breaking the law at will in numerous states.
Even when they get what they want, a la States Rights and whatever other benchmark horsesh*t they require, they want more.
To me, a citizen, those are killable offenses, much as Zimmerman believed Trayvon’s alleged offense was a wothry of execution.
I think I’d get off too.
shark, jumped.
What I see are people grasping at any straw to avoid admitting that the black kid brought this on himself by assaulting somebody. That’s just another form of predjudice.
Then you’re not f*cking reading what people are writing!
And why do you keep framing this sh*t in terms of whether or not Zimmerman had the “right” to be where he was? I have the “right” to let my kids play video games all the time, but it doesn’t make it good parenting or leave me blameless if they grow up to be fat and stupid.
I have the “right” to walk into a biker bar and randomly ask people things like “Why are you dressed so stupidly? Are you f*cking retarded or something?” In some states I can do that with a loaded pistol on my person. In Florida, I guess I can shoot the guy who starts to knock the teeth out of my mouth for me.
To quote Francis from Stripes: “All I know is I finally get to kill somebody.”
Actually, no. The Sanford 911 dispatcher is a civilian that works for all of the local emergency services. Which is why they ask you, starting out, whether you have a medical emergency.
The call in question was placed to the Sanford Police non-emergency number. No 911 dispatcher was involved.
The first words the dispatcher spoke to Zimmerman were: “Do you need police, fire or medical?”
They were actually “Sanford Police Department”.
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman
And we have no evidence whatsoever that Trayon threw the first punch
Except that there are no marks on Martin other than a bullet wound and there are multiple marks on Zimmerman. The bullet wound produced death. Martin could not hit Zimmerman after he was killed, ergo he must have hit Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him. The physical evidence–known as “objective evidence”–is that Zimmerman’s nonfatal injuries preceded Martin’s fatal injuries. This is viewed by courts across the land as “some evidence”.
This physical evidence was well known prior to trial. The evidence was insufficient to convict of murder or manslaughter. The state is not supposed to prosecute anyone when there is insufficient evidence to convict.
As for the notion that there is a bona fide fact dispute as to whether Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining down punches or vice versa, where is the physical evidence that Martin was hit in the face? There is no such evidence.
There are some unknown’s: at some point, after being hit repeatedly, Zimmerman got his gun out and shot Martin. Had Martin disengaged and gotten up? How did that unfold? I don’t have the ballistics, so it is unclear whether the bullet path–not always reliable–supports both men standing after having been on the ground or whether it supports a shot fired from the ground into a man standing or whether there was an artifact known as stipling which would indicate the shot was fired within six inches or so from Martin’s chest, which would be consistent with Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman but inconsistent with Martin’s at-rest position. I think Martin was standing when he was shot.
Zimmerman was stupid to follow Martin because Martin turned out to be someone who found being followed and possibly confronted and questioned sufficiently offensive as to justify trying to beat someone up. Zimmerman was a busy body, probably a cop wanna-be and got in way over his head when Martin turned out to be a lot more aggressive than Zimmerman most likely expected. So, granted: Zimmerman was a rude, annoying and offensive busy-body. That justifies violence? If it does, then it invites escalation and a very bad outcome.
Since we are playing the skin game on this one: if Zimmerman had been black, this would be an unremarkable statistical blip. He wasn’t. This was the rare occurrence of a man who appeared to be white but who unfortunately for the narrative turned out to be Hispanic (so he became a white Hispanic–a new ethnic category) shooting a black 17 year old. So, instead of a statistical blip, it becomes a cause celebre for the usual suspects who demand prosecution. And who now demand that the feds step in and try the white Hispanic a second time.
My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6’2″, is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.
Because, you know, *following* and *rudeness* is inherently and justifiably provocative.
The difference between me and the left is that I’d let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense. Regardless of skin color.
Except that there are no marks on Martin other than a bullet wound and there are multiple marks on Zimmerman.
Just as a thought exercize, consider the following scenario. You are walking down the street. Some guy comes up and grabs you. You try to break free, but are unsuccessful. So you throw a punch to try and make him let go.
Now, how many bruises do you figure you will have at that point? Have you ever been grabbed and gotten noticible bruises from it? Often? Just asking….
My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6’2″, is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.
your take away is your own. because it doesn’t seem to reflect what anybody here is saying. but that’s understandable, since you’re complaining a grouping of unnamed (and possibly imaginary) people who hold an opinion you want to complain about: “the left”.
what most people here seem to want is some acknowledgement that Zimmerman was not attacked out of the blue for unknown reasons; some admission that he acted recklessly, irresponsibly, aggressively, etc.. and you do a little of that in your comment, which is nice to see. but many of his defenders insist he did absolutely nothing wrong. and it’s utterly despicable.
now maybe the law is incapable of dealing with Zimmerman’s culpability here. but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t share some moral responsibility for what happened.
and as long as we’re playing make believe:
imagine a man stalking a woman at night, at first in a car, then on foot. she runs away. he chases. they end up near each other. does she have the right to confront him? if they start to struggle and she gets the better of him, is the man justified in shooting her dead? and does he bear any moral responsibility for her death?
according to you, i think the answer is an unqualified, cheering, chest thumping, “FVCK NO!”
lemme modify…
according to you should be according to many of Zimmerman’s defenders
I really do think both sides would call Zimmerman a responsible gun owner.
During a police interview shortly after the shooting, Zimmerman claimed that he had forgotten that he was carrying his firearm.
Nuff said.
(so he became a white Hispanic–a new ethnic category)
That’s weird. I’ve sometimes wavered when filling out standard forms that include categories like “White (not Hispanic)” and “Hispanic (of any race),” only because I’m not really sure if I fit the definition of being “Hispanic.” Those forms generally also have a category of “Black (not Hispanic).”
The fact that I’m not really sure if I’m white and Hispanic or just plain, old white with an insufficient amount of Latin ancestry to be considered a Hispanic white person has kept me aware of these categories on forms like surveys, tax returns, job applications, university admissions, etc. I’ve been filling out forms with these categories for decades, so it’s news to me that “white Hispanic” is something new.
Because, you know, *following* and *rudeness* is inherently and justifiably provocative.
The difference between me and the left is that I’d let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense.
Leaving aside that Zimmerman’s actions were not simply rude, but also threateningly weird, the argument (once again!) isn’t that Martin was justified in beating Zimmerman up. It’s that Zimmerman’s actions over the course of several minutes before the final confrontation were unnecessary and precipitated his need for self-defense. I don’t think anyone is claiming that, were Martin alive, he shouldn’t have faced assault charges (as a juvenile, mind you) for beating up Zimmerman (the “adult”).
And I don’t think Zimmerman’s body would have been quite so busy in the first place had he not been armed. His wanna-be-ness wouldn’t have wanted to be quite so much if he weren’t embolded by his carrying a loaded pistol.
With all that, I think you agree more than you think you do about Zimmerman’s actions, since you’re even willing to call him a busy-body and a wanna-be (you socialist, you).
At any point in any of the recorded conversations, during some of which Martin was at least within hailing distance, did Zimmerman identify himself as neighborhood watch?
And no creeper would ever lie about being a quasi-authority figure…
It would involve staying on the main roads, not stopping but not running, and trying to establish if it was neighborhood watch if there was a well it corner. It would NOT involve cutting through other peoples yards as he runs away.
So 1)it’s possible that Martin didn’t have a good spot to stop to identify Zimmerman, 2)I dont know how you flee a car while staying on the sidewalk, and 3)Martin may not have done the *optimal* things, but 17-year-olds sometimes do cut through yards, and this normally isn’t considered punishable by death. Nor is this ‘suspicious’ when being tailed by a stranger.
That’s not what Zimmerman reported as the initial exchange. Either she is lying, or he is. If he is, there’s not one damned thing wrong with Martin’s response. And, if she’s telling the truth, Zimmerman is a damned liar, and in fact a perjurer.
Furthermore, her story is entirely consistant with the prosecution case and the situation up until the actual confrontation (ie that Martin was fleeing, Zimmerman was pursuing). Whereas the defense case is that Martin turned into the spree-killer of Brett’s imagination, jumping Zimmermand repeatedly threatening to kill him. The funny part of that to me is that Zimmerman’s self-defense case would still work if he had initially verbally confronted Martin and was attacked & feared for his life- so Brett’s caricature spree killer “thug” (eg “You’re gonna die tonight mfer”) is both entirely unbelievable and unnecessary.
It also happens to be the most symapthetic story Zimmerman could tell, short of Martin wielding a lethal weapon of some kind that later evaporated.
Because Martin was kicking his @ss. Zimmerman picked the wrong kid to harrass.
That’s the beauty of Zimmerman carrying a gun to this fight. If he wins the fight, he’s the manly man who beat up the criminal. If he loses, BAM, and he’s the only witness to testify about what happened.
That is, if Martin had the broken nose, this would never have made the newspaper.
Unless *Martin* has the gun. Then he shoots Zimmerman once they’re off of the street, and Martin gets to tell the story as he wants to. And Brett would surely believe Martin 100% as long as his story was consistent with the physical evidence.
They were actually “Sanford Police Department”.
When you find yourself making up facts and quotes, you should examine your motivations. And Id thought of you as a person who, when they quoted something, had more to go on then ‘I bet it went something like this.’
“what most people here seem to want is some acknowledgement that Zimmerman was not attacked out of the blue for unknown reasons;”
No, it wasn’t out of the blue. It was for grossly, mind bogglingly inadequate reason, but it’s not like Martin picked somebody at random to beat the crap out of. There are reasons it was Zimmerman, and not somebody else.
Just not good enough reasons to make Zimmerman the bad guy in this.
Basically, what I see here, is an alternate history where Zimmerman attacked Martin, with all the evidence proving it’s BS elided, and evidence supporting it fabricated out of whole cloth.
There is no physical evidence either way as to who escalated to an altercation. As has been pointed out to you before, there are dozens of ways to start a physical altercation and many don’t leave huge marks eg a shove, a grab, a tackle/grapple, a missed or grazing strike, a punch to the body, a chest-bump, an attempt to lock up a joint (eg armlock).
If I start a fight with Floyd Mayweather, he will likely not have a stratch on him when its over. And by Brett’s Rules of Evidence, this will mean Mayweather started the fight
because he’s blackbecause Im the one beaten up at the end.Why am I supposed to assume Zimmerman’s account of what went down is wrong, when it has the advantage of being consistent with both the physical evidence
Lots of stories are consistent with the physical evidence. You pick the one that makes you happy (or, like russell, you admit that there are several possible stories). In this case, it makes you happy that the 17-year-old on a trip to the corner store is a “thug” who “picked” Zimmerman out to “beat to death”. I wouldn’t think you were a racist if you thought Zimmerman was innocent because Martin attacked him out of fear of being persistently followed by a stranger at night. But your invocation of words like “thug” and your implication that Martin *wanted* to kill Zimmerman are far beyond this.
The difference between me and the left is that I’d let the guy getting beat up for what to me seems a grossly inadequate reason to shoot in self defense.
The difference between you and the left is that we can imagine ourselves in either role: Zimmerman’s or Martin’s. Or one of our kids. So far you have only demonstrated the ability to empathize with Zimmerman’s position and actions, to the point of demonizing Martin.
That is, you clearly have a side. Id think it was about defending the gun owner/user, but then there’s the “thug” stuff that makes me think otherwise. Or maybe it’s both. But you’re clearly not able to imagine your kid being followed/chased by an armed stranger at night, then a fight started by someone, then your kid getting shot and killed.
I just want to say that if any of you are ever trying to get away from a creepy guy who is stalking you, you have my permission to cut through my yard. Please do.
you have my permission to cut through my yard. Please do.
Even if I’m wearing my grey hoodie?
It turns out that you’re right. CNN has had an incorrect transcript posted for over a year, now.
I am wrong on this particular point.
But the guy who answered the telephone is just one of many people (about 30, by his testimony) who answer non-emergency calls for various police, fire and medical services in the area.
As you might expect, his testimony was included in George Zimmerman’s trial, and can be seen here, just for reference.
There are various recordings of the call available which I am sure that most of you have listened to. If not, I recommend giving one a listen. Zimmerman doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent on accosting another person; he doesn’t sound angry or even particularly tense other than he wants to keep this person, who was someone walking through his neighborhood that he didn’t recognize, in sight. But this is mostly about perceptions, and yours probably is a different one.
Noffke’s testimony (if you sit through it) was to the effect that dispatchers are not allowed to instruct people to take actions for liability reasons. So it seems that my point is made, here: this was not an instruction.
Which is my only point, here.
No skittles, though!
Cleek, I think the male/female dynamic changes a lot of things about this scenario, and I was mindful of that when I made my comments. The entire threat dynamic/paradigm shifts, which means your reply avoids my main point. Woman are far more vulnerable due to the inherent strength and sexual overlay. It would be interesting to know whether Zimmerman voluntarily closed the distance between him and Martin or whether he remained far enough away to not pose an immediate physical threat. We all have a ‘space’ that, if encroached by a stranger at night produces a completely different response than a stranger maintaining a respectable distance, whatever that might be.
I think Martin was a thug because of the evidence barred from the courtroom, and mostly omitted from news coverage, but which is none the less available to those interested. The loot from burglaries found in his school locker. The facebook postings. The contents of his cell phone. Martin was a thug. Not the angelic 12 year old of early media profiles. A thug.
Inconvenient, but that’s the truth. He was exactly the sort of guy you WOULD expect to assault somebody. And probably walk off with their wallet afterwards.
But the guy who answered the telephone is just one of many people (about 30, by his testimony) who answer non-emergency calls for various police, fire and medical services in the area.
did Zimmerman know that, during the call?
if i call the police to report a situation in which i am actively engaged and the first thing i hear is “Pittsboro Police Department”, i am going assume i’m talking with someone who knows a thing or two about the kinds of situations police deal with, and i’m going to do what they say unless the situation goes critical.
but that’s just me.
Zimmerman was already more familiar with the police and they’re procedures than i am.
they’re = their, up there
“Just not good enough reasons to make Zimmerman the bad guy in this.”
Posted by: Brett Bellmore
Wrong again, as usual. Zimmerman took a gun and went after a guy. If you’re walking down the street and are confronted by an armed man, you have the right to defend yourself.
How would I know that? Maybe, maybe not.
The guy didn’t identify himself as Officer Sean, so my assumption would be not. But I am not George Zimmerman.
But my other guess would be that given Zimmerman had been a member of Neightborhood Watch for as long as he was, and given that he’d been on another ~45 such phone calls with the police, that he’d have some idea of the infrastructure he’s dealing with.
Just my guesses; no particular relevancy.
Zimmerman doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent on accosting another person; he doesn’t sound angry or even particularly tense other than he wants to keep this person, who was someone walking through his neighborhood that he didn’t recognize, in sight
He sounds like someone who thinks that Martin was on drugs, acting strangely, and reaching into his waistband (presumably for a weapon). That is, he sounds like someone prepared to make assumptions that this kid was a dangerous, drugged-up criminal based on almost zero evidence. And he emphatically does not want this dangerous drugged up criminal to ‘get away with it’ this time.
Of course, that’s based on the *words* Zimmerman used, not some generous attempt to interpret his tone.
He was exactly the sort of guy you WOULD expect to assault somebody. And probably walk off with their wallet afterwards.
Certainly not because he had ever done anything like that before in his life (whereas Zimmerman does have a history of violence, yet you havent exactly called him a thug). So I assume by “exactly the sort” you mean “black”, since there’s no other explanation that I can see.
Martin was a thug.
You are a racist, plain and simple. Im kinda done with this cesspool of a conversation.
sounds like a generous interpretation.
But I have a question for the non-rabid posters here. Zimmerman’s attorney is now pronouncing Trayvon Martin as a gun runner and drug dealer. Can his parents take him to court for defamation? Is there any recourse at all from these kind of disgusting statements?
Unless Florida law is unusual in this respect too, there’s no such thing as defaming the dead. I suspect these are warning shots about what will get spread around about Martin if the parents sue Zimmerman civilly for wrongful death.
I think Martin was a thug because of the evidence barred from the courtroom, and mostly omitted from news coverage, but which is none the less available to those interested.
Please spare us the suspense, Brett. I know you can post links.
Oh it’s already spread around, by the likes of Brett right here. There may be no law against defaming the dead, but that wouldn’t prevent us from banning him from ObWi, in defense of fundamental human decency, would it? Just asking.
sounds like a generous interpretation
I cannot think of a reason- other than the suggestion of a weapon- for Zimmerman to mention that Martin had a hand in his waistband. But by all means, just because I can’t think of one doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
Maybe Zimmerman thought Martin would still have his hand in his waistband 10 minutes later when the cops rolled up, and that this detail would be useful for identifying him?
Please spare us the suspense, Brett.
It’s much better as innuendo than fact:
-Martin (probably) smoked some pot
-Martin graffiti’ed a wall (or stood by while a friend did it- he was a party to it anyway)
-Martin had several watches and ‘a burglary tool’ (aka ‘a screwdriver’, apparently Ive got a basement full of burglary tools who knew). He wasn’t charged with anything.
-Martin sometimes does not wear a shirt and allows his photograph to be taken. He even strikes poses or makes faces (aka ‘menacing’, if one is scared of teh blackness).
Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting a cop and had a girlfriend take out a restraining order after alleging domestic violence.
Brett thinks one of these people is a thug. But it’s not based on skin color, oh no, it’s based on how smoking weed and using a marker on a wall is symptomatic of a sick, violent, dangerous individual, a time bomb waiting to explode on innocent woman-hitter George Zimmerman.
McKinney speculates: My take away, given the skin game, is this: going forward, by the logic of the left, if a young white male, 6’2″, is being followed and questioned offensively by a smaller, older black male, the white male has sufficient provocation to beat the hell out of the black male and the black male, if armed and if he is otherwise unable to defend himself, may not shoot in self defense.
Tex, come’on man. Try to be a little fair. The terms “sufficient provocation” and “otherwise unable to defend himself” are carrying a lot of weight here. I mean really. We have no independent way to evaluate an alleged “provocation” nor do we have any idea of the extent to which woeful George was able to defend himself. There are other options to just shooting somebody. Assuming the shot was not fired when he was pinned down (like you, I do not know the ballistics or even if there was a report), he could have simply ran away. He was not physically disabled by the terrible assault.
IMHO in response to your scenario: Given the circumstances you posit, shooting the other person is not justifiable. An attack by fist does not justify a death sentence. By anybody.
If I wanted to get snide, I’d say ,b>”the right’s” logic would be to conclude that the little black guy could justifiably be lynched, because that’s how you roll.
In this instance, I shall refrain from going there. Have a nice day.
For that matter, I know you can use a search engine. But I’ll save you the trouble:
Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors
Or, Gun, drug texts feature in new Trayvon Martin shooting evidence
No of this should come as a surprise to anybody who has followed the case enough to be entitled to an opinion.
Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.
Cultural norms may vary, but I live less than 30 miles away from Zimmerman’s house, so I suspect that we share some sense of askance-ness at such behavior.
s/polite/”socially acceptable”
For that matter, I know you can use a search engine.
Sure, but I can’t search for “stuff Brett’s basing his opinion on.” That, and you’re the one putting forth characterizations of Martin based on things you already know.
In any case, I never had any need to believe Martin was some sort of angel to think that Zimmerman shouldn’t have handled himself the way he did, mostly because Zimmerman had no way of knowing a damned thing about Martin’s past.
And, frankly, Martin’s past isn’t such that I would consider him a thug, meaning someone of a particularly violent nature. He was no angel, but not a thug, either – not that it has any bearing on Zimmerman’s culpability.
Mostly, I wanted you to show us what you had on him, so I would know whether or not it was the same weak sauce that I had already seen. As it turns out, it was.
Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors
Yes, it’s a big conspiracy on the part of every level of the Florida state government to cover up crimes committed by blacks.
OR, you’re not just a racist, you’re a gullible racist.
I mean, the evidence here includes things such as- he took a selfie flipping off the camera. That is part of your evidence that this kid was a walking time-bomb, a clear and present danger to every
wife beaterconcerned citizen out there.Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness.
True, and that’s why I think Zimmerman was either lying or mistaken when he said he saw that.
I mean, Martin did not have a gun. So there was no reason to be walking around with his hand in his wasteband. But Zimmerman thought Martin was a dangerous criminal and probably was worried that he’d be armed, so Zimmerman would be primed to expect a weapon, whether or not there was one. And he probably figured that if he said he saw that, the police would be more likely to respond.
Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.
You are now moving tangential to the point. The question was whether the hand-in-waistband was suggestive of a weapon. I said yes. You said maybe not. So how *common* it is is irrelevant. If Zimmerman isn’t suggesting that Martin is armed, do you have another explanation for his mentioning this detail? All of his other details are relevant to the matter at hand (ie concerning risk factors, identifying factors, intercations, locations, etc). So afaict this was suggesting a weapon, or this was Zimmerman’s one conversational break where he just starting saying whatever came into his mind. “Ok he’s staring at me now… hey, you see season five of The Wire? Watched it last night, blew me away… ok, now he’s running”.
School officials searched Martin’s backpack after he was caught writing ‘WTF’ on a locker.
They found 12 pieces of woman’s jewelry, a watch, and a ‘burglary tool’.
The ‘burglary tool’ was a flat-head screwdriver.
A photo and description of the jewelry was sent to police, in case it had been reported stolen. The jewelry did not match anything that had been reported stolen.
No other evidence supporting the claim that the jewelry was stolen, much less that Martin himself stole it, has been presented.
From the Boston Globe, which is of course Pravda on the Charles, so it’s probably just a part of the Big Cover Up.
To pre-empt further attempts at maligning the dead, Martin was suspended for the graffiti incident, and again for cutting school and being tardy, and again for holding some weed.
Thug life, fa realz.
Really Brett, you may not be a total ass, but you certainly know how to play one.
True, and that’s why I think Zimmerman was either lying or mistaken when he said he saw that.
I agree- just like thinking Martin was on drugs, acting “wrong”, up to no good, casing houses, etc. Zimmerman was clearly eager to classify Martin as a dangerous armed criminal, and his observations sound like what he expected to see rather than what he was actually seeing.
Also, this, in response to Brett’s earlier contention that Zimmerman would’ve certainly been killed or crippled by the attack had it continued:
“[Zimmerman’s injuries] were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant,” Rao told the Seminole County criminal court jury…. medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman’s injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete.
She’s probably just another part of the vast government conspiracy protecting black people.
“Where I live, people walking around with their hands stuck in the waistband of their trousers would be viewed with much askance-ness. Normally hands-in-pants behavior is not considered polite in a public context.
Cultural norms may vary, but I live less than 30 miles away from Zimmerman’s house, so I suspect that we share some sense of askance-ness at such behavior.”
Posted by: Slartibartfast |
You’re a great dancer, Slart – you’ve shimmied from a justification for armed pursuit and confrontation to ‘not considered polite’.
The whole incident was a horrible misunderstanding.
The whole incident was a horrible misunderstanding.
I’d venture to say it still is……
Over here defaming the dead can get you up to two years behind bars. But don’t forget, Germany is a fascist police state not a bastion of liberty like Florida.
That’s right, Hartmut, and don’t forget it. Over here you can’t get in trouble for telling the TRUTH about the living or the dead. Not even the inconvenient truth.
AL SHARPTON!
You can, however, get in serious trouble for buying Skittles and wearing a hoodie. To the applause of multitudes, Brett included.
Just to be fair, I followed up Brett’s links. From which:
“Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?” Crump said in a statement released Thursday.
“If so, this stereotypical and closed-minded thinking is the same mindset that caused George Zimmerman to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon, an unarmed kid who he didn’t know.”
But Brett knows better. Kid flipped the bird on camera, deserves to die!! Especially since the Man With The Gun [tm] must have a reason for what he did. Axiomatic, to Brett.
Sheesh.
“Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?”
Nah, they were trying, apparently successfully, to rid the jury of the notion being pushed by the media that Martin was an angelic 12 year old, and bring that perception into alignment with the actual evidence.
Let’s just pretend that the trial was a weighing of evidence of guilt or innocence of the perp rather than a venue for passing judgment on the character of the victim.
Pretending that, there really isn’t any grounds for introducing a picture of Martin that Zimmerman presumably never saw where Martin is flipping off the camera. Even Brett makes it clear that the purpose here was painting a picture of Martin that made his death acceptable- not proving that Zimmerman’s unlikely story was true or that he feared for his life, but flat out smearing the victim with information completely unrelated to the incident at hand.
Apparently the Justice of Brett’s imagination likes a peek over the blindfold to see if the victim is a n&$$^@ or not. And he’s totally fine with that, that’s the way it’s supposed to be- I mean, you’ve got to put a finger on the scales against black people since the media and government are shilling for them at every opportunity.
If only America could see its way to giving an equal chance to the white man! Then all this fiddling with the scales wouldn’t be necessary.
If wearing sweatshirts, holding weed, defacing school property, petty theft and vandalism, talking trash about girls, getting in dumb-ass fights, and flipping the bird to whatever camera is pointed at you makes you a thug worthy of death, I don’t think I or a single one of my buddies from my teen years would be alive today.
Just saying.
Maybe Brett was always a good boy and never did any of those bad bad things.
Let’s just pretend that the character of the dead guy is relevant to assessing the probability that he actually was the aggressor, and that if he were a choir boy just back from doing charity work for the blind, a rational person would be a bit more skeptical about Zimmerman’s story.
imho, it’s not really worth it getting angry at Brett. It merely has him google furiously for more evidence of thuggishness. It would be great if he realized why he is so implacably decided on the fact that Travyon was destined to die at the hands of George Zimmerman, but the event that would get him to reconsider would certainly not be any words he reads on a computer screen, it would be something so tragic and close to home in real life that I really wouldn’t wish it on any one, no matter how much of an ass they are. Especially since wishing that sort of thing on people is really not conducive to any kind of mental equilibrium I would hope for.
http://mobile.thegrio.com/thegrio/#!/entry/71yearold-black-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-jury-rejects-stand,5124f9c5d7fc7b56703b5d2f
Standing his ground = guilty
cleek, that link only leads me to the main page not the story.
I got to it through the search option now. This sentence jumped at me:
Was James at least three handed? That’s sounds as (cuttle?)fishy as GZ’s story to me.
And I’m not particularly angry at you guys, I know nothing will cause you to care about the evidence of Martin’s thugishness. Individual cases aren’t about the individuals in your world, they’re just interchangeable instances of the social phenomenon you care about.
So the near certainly that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and would still be alive today if he hadn’t, just doesn’t matter to you. Because it’s not about Martin or Zimmerman, is it?
Zimmerman got in legal trouble before the trial for deliberately lying to the court about his assets. The man seems to have trouble telling the truth. Shouldn’t that affect how we weigh his story? I mean, how many lies do we have to catch him in before we assume that he’s untrustworthy?
Brett, I didn’t claim you were angry with anyone. I told other people they shouldn’t bother being angry with you. I have a suspicion that you keep staking out these extreme positions and refusing to acknowledge any points on the other side because you want people to take a swing at you and then you can portray yourself as a put upon minority and the only person who is thinking clearly, but that’s just my feeling. But if you don’t care for that speculation, you may want to stop speculating on what people on this board care or don’t care about.
So the near certainly that Martin attacked Zimmerman
a.) Not proven, and certainly not even “anywhere near” a certainty.
b.) I’m curious as to why Zimmerman’s testimony is pertinent to the case, but that testimony could not be cross examined. Perhaps one of you attorneys could tell me. McKinney?
I assume many here have now heard the interview with the juror. God help us.
Let’s just pretend that the character of the dead guy is relevant to assessing the probability that he actually was the aggressor
Cool. Let’s get into it.
Here’s the public record I can find of Martin’s propensity to violence, as captured from his cell phone and published by online conservative truth-tellers.
Watch them if you dare.
Martin referees a ‘street fight’, so called because it apparently occurs in a paved area.
Or this RARE VIDEO of Martin FIGHTING!!!! As in, boxing with a friend of his, with gloves on. They spar for a minute and then tap gloves. SCARY!!!!!
Or this EXPLOSIVE!!!! video of ‘somebody Martin knew’ ‘fighting’ a ‘homeless man’ over a bike, which someone else Martin ‘may or may not have known’ then rode away on, which (per Zimmerman’s own attorneys, in a public exercise in crow-eating) turns out to be Martin’s more or less random cell phone video of two random guys fighting in a fairly lame manner over a bike.
Zimmerman’s history of aggressive behavior prior to the night of Martin’s death:
Arrested for resisting arrest with violence and for battery of a police officer.
Restraining order granted by former fiancee for alleged domestic violence.
If we’re going to evaluate the respective character of the folks involved, let’s look at both.
By all means, dive in and explain how Zimmerman’s history is not relevant, or not as it seems, or just a result of him being unfairly characterized as a hothead.
He didn’t really mean to punch that cop!!
Really, if you want to keep wearing the dumbass hat, I’m happy to play as long as you like.
It’ll be entertaining, for a little while longer anyway.
Individual cases aren’t about the individuals in your world
What you know about my world would, perhaps, on a good day, fit in a thimble.
IMO, what you know about most anyone’s world other than your own, likewise. Just my opinion, based on any and everything you’ve ever written here.
Sorry, here is the ‘RARE VIDEO OF TRAYVON MARTIN FIGHTING!!!’.
Really, please watch it. It will make your blood run cold with fear.
I meant to follow up my long comment about Trayvon Martin with another about George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman lied about where he initially saw, and where he sat in his truck watching, Trayvon. Why?
Zimmerman failed to mention to the NEN dispatcher that he had moved his truck and was following behind Trayvon. He also initially failed to tell Inv. Singleton about this movement until she caught on to the omission. Why?
Zimmerman lied about why he left he left his truck, repeatedly stating that he’d done so to find a street sign or an address to give to the NEN dispatcher. Inv. Singleton finally caught him out when they listened to the NEN call – that, in fact, he left his truck immediately after saying, “Sh!t, he’s running.”
Zimmerman lied about why he failed to return to his truck after agreeing with the NEN dispatcher that he needn’t follow ‘the suspect.’ (In his written statement, and later to Inv. Serino, he makes it clear that he understood the dispatcher to mean “Don’t follow”). When asked why he didn’t immediately return to his truck, he responded that he still wanted to get an address, and that he already knew the name of the street ahead of him.
Once again, Zimmerman lied about getting an address. There he was, allegedly standing amidst several homes on Retreat View Circle (“my street”), and he utterly fails to give one to the NEN dispatcher when he’s finally asked for an address at which the incoming LEO can meet him. When he’s first asked for an address at which his truck is parked, he simply answered that it was parked at a cut-through without an address. But, then he agreed to meet the LEO at his truck. After that, he agreed to meet the LEO at the mailboxes. Finally, he interrupted the dispatcher to ask that the LEO call him and “I”ll tell him where I’m at.” Why?
All those addresses to choose from, and he doesn’t mention a single one. Why?
Zimmerman lied about immediately returning to his truck; he could have done so when he agreed with the NEN dispatcher to not follow, after he said “He ran” with the implication that ‘the suspect’ had disappeared, and at anytime both during and after the NEN call ended.
Instead, Zimmerman continued to hunt for Trayvon. Why?
Zimmerman lied about Trayvon jumping out from behind bushes to summarily attack him. Why?
Zimmerman lied about how Trayvon punched him in the nose at the T, immediately got on top of him to repeatedly punch his face and bash his head, and cover his nose and mouth. Why?
Zimmerman elided the movement south of the T before he did the reenactment, when he muttered about somehow getting up at the T and moving past a tree, while seeming to swat at gnats behind him. He elided how he ended up 40 feet south of the T, near which was all the evidence except for one small flashlight attached to a key-ring (and which was on). Why?
More importantly, Zimmerman elided how, upon standing up (if he ever fell down in the first place) and upon being able to move unimpeded (he implied that Trayvon was behind him), he chose to move southward (towards Trayvon’s destination) rather than westward to his truck. Why?
Zimmerman altogether lied, when he could get away with it, about following Trayvon in his truck, why he sought to follow on foot, why he remained in the area when he could have left to meet the LEO, how Trayvon allegedly approached and decked and battered him at the T, and why he chose to proceed with the ‘struggle’ when he could have very easily retreated to his truck.
But, yeah, let’s believe Zimmerman.
About Zimmerman’s injuries, the screams, and the gun shot.
We already know that Zimmerman lied about not looking for Trayvon, and about getting battered at the T.
His injuries consisted of abrasions and minor bruising on forehead and scalp; two tiny scalp lacerations (smallest 0.19 inch, largest 0.78 inch) requiring no sutures and no special treatment beyond soap and water; one scratch on the right side of his nose, one “likely” broken nose; and two small scratches on the tip of his nose.
Within 30 minutes of this wrestling match, alleged beating, the fear of his opponent reaching for his gun and telling him “You’re gonna tonight, mother—er,” Zimmerman’s physical stats were absolutely normal – breathing and pulse, pupil reaction, skin color and temperature, etc. – with clear mucous membranes and having had no loss of consciousness and no pain in his neck and back. This according to the paramedic’s report, who otherwise described the injuries as “minor.”
EMTs cannot force a conscious person to go to the hospital, and Zimmerman refused to do so. He repeated this refusal when asked by police officers later at the station. He only went to his doctor late the next morning, after first going to his workplace, and did so only because his employer wanted a doctor’s note.
His doctor noted those two small lacerations, and a “likely” broken nose. Zimmerman refused the ENT referral, which would have provided the correct diagnosis.
Could Trayvon have punched Zimmerman in the nose, either directly or in defense? Of course. We just don’t know. Were there other possibilities for all injuries? Oh, yes; in the dark on wet pavement and grass, running and wrestling amidst bare tree branches, signage, sidewalks, utility covers, and sprinkler heads. Gun recoil in close quarters, shell casing ejection in close quarters (up and to the right).
What’s not possible is the story Zimmerman told.
But, remember, it wasn’t in reaction to his ‘beating’ that caused Zimmerman to reach for his gun. It was his ‘feeling’ that Trayvon had “seen or felt his gun” and began “reaching for it,” with a phrase that comes right out of 70s blaxpoitation or Dirty Harry films.
Zimmerman’s gun was holstered on his waistband in the small of his back. Unless he had previously showed or indicated its presence, Trayvon would not have been able to see or feel the gun, particularly in the dark, but even in sunshine with Zimmerman lying on it. Neither could Zimmerman have stopped Trayvon’s right arm allegedly reaching across Zimmerman’s torso with just his bicep. And Zimmerman could not possibly have reached for and retrieved his gun in the manner he described.
What Zimmerman’s scenario doesn’t take into account, besides its implausibility, is that Trayvon stretching his right arm and hand while mounted atop Zimmerman would leave his left arm and hand unable to cover Zimmerman’s nose/mouth as Zimmerman described. The movement would also leave Trayvon unbalanced, with his weight leaning over to his left. Which would have made it even more impossible for Zimmerman to get his gun – and to fire it – as he portrayed.
Zimmerman, in his statements, confirmed that he had “wrist control” (pain compliance hold) of Trayvon, that he had time to worry about his own left hand that was holding onto Trayvon, and that he was able to “aim and fire.”
None of this makes sense, except that it strongly tells us it was Zimmerman in physical control of the situation. So, who would be screaming? The guy who followed and hunted the teenager, who refused to go to his truck to meet the LEO when he had plenty of chances to do so, who repeatedly lied and made up an implausible story, who had physical control and was armed with a gun? Or the teenager who had run away from his follower/pursuer, who obviously sought to get away from his pursuer, who was being physically held, and who was facing a gun?
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was ever in reasonable fear of grave harm or death. There is evidence, however, that Trayvon was.
“Individual cases aren’t about the individuals in your world, they’re just interchangeable instances of the social phenomenon you care about.”
Made in a general sort of way, that often happens when a particular case is made to stand for a social ill, so yeah, good point in that respect. I gather parts of the press really botched the coverage of the case in their desire to make it a super-simple morality play. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler really tore into MSNBC on that account last year. I mostly stayed away from close coverage of the story, since I know in general that white racism is alive and well, and whatever the details of this story are won’t change that. And I had no emotional reaction to the news of the verdict–maybe the jurors, given the evidence in front of them, did exactly the right thing. (I haven’t seen the interview someone mentioned above).
But in this thread, Brett, it’s clearly you who is focused in monomaniacal style on the flaws of the victim–people keep pointing out Zimmerman’s own more dubious history and you keep ignoring it. It’s like you’ve got a narrative in your mind that depends on Zimmerman being an honest guy just defending himself and Martin being the incarnation of white America’s fears of young black men. Whereas I think a lot of your opponents are willing to grant that Martin wasn’t an angel and Zimmerman should have been acquitted , but think he likely bears a lot of moral blame for what happened. It’s a reasonable position, and you treat it like it’s something radical. For you, treating these two people as individuals means elevating Zimmerman to blameless hero status and making Martin into a would-be killer.
I’m in decent shape for my age, but have no illusions about my fighting ability, and would be rather reluctant (setting aside all moral considerations and just considering my own personal safety) to follow around a teenage boy who was taller than me and probably in better shape, first by car and then by foot. I’d have the quite rational fear that teenage boys sometimes react in macho ways. Isn’t this just common sense? Again setting aside the reasons why I might even want to do this in the first place, the only way I’d feel halfway confident is if I had a gun. Which means that if I followed him then I’d be thinking “Well, this is risky and might provoke a fight, but if it does I can shoot him.” To me that would make me bear most of the blame for what happened, even if at the time I thought the boy was a possible burglar, because that fight could happen whether or not the boy was a possible burglar.
This is why ordinary citizens aren’t supposed to follow around others if they think them suspicious, but report them to the police. Or anyway I thought that was how it was supposed to work. (And sapient, much as it no doubt pains you to hear this, I agree with your authoritarianism on this if not on some other issues.)
Where are you getting all this, nemerinys?
This is from MSNBC onlie news, but a year ago:
Court documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.
The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.
•In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.
Why would it be “open-minded” for us to consider Trayvon Martin a thug, when it was Zimmerman who had the history of violent behavior?
Whereas I think a lot of your opponents are willing to grant that Martin wasn’t an angel and Zimmerman should have been acquitted , but think he likely bears a lot of moral blame for what happened. It’s a reasonable position, and you treat it like it’s something radical. For you, treating these two people as individuals means elevating Zimmerman to blameless hero status and making Martin into a would-be killer.
Thank you! (Everloving Christ almighty, thank you…)
Sorry, here is the ‘RARE VIDEO OF TRAYVON MARTIN FIGHTING!!!’.
Really, please watch it. It will make your blood run cold with fear.
I did that in the J Hall bathroom in high school – suburbanite, minivan-driving, father-of-four, engineer that I am. Yeah, scary stuff there.
And we have no evidence whatsoever that Trayon threw the first punch.
What we have is Zimmerman’s statement to police on the scene:
—-
” Yet, Zimmerman told Detectives that Martin punched him in the nose so hard that he “fell to the ground when he punched me the first time” and that he was “punched in the nose 25 to 30 times.””
—-
and what we have is the autopsy report – http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/05/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf
which states at “Evidence of Injury” at page 3 – apart from the gunshot wound, Martin had a single small abrasion on his left fourth finger. You’ll note that it is this which was blown up by wingnut misinformation as “bloody knuckles”.
How exactly do you go about punching someone to the ground and raining 25 to 30 punches to their nose without taking damage to your hands?
What we have is evidence of Zimmerman lying to cops on the scene about the punching.
hairshirthedonist – From discovery materials, FDLE lab reports, Zimmerman’s physician report, NEN and 911 audio tapes, audio tapes of police interviews, videotape of reenactment, CCTV tapes, and maps.
Discovery materials include police reports and narrations, FDLE interviews with police officers and witnesses, Serino interviews and reports as well as capias, autopsy, EMT medical report, etc.
Where I live, adults do not have the right to be persistently on the six of adolescents, male or female. And if that stops just one child rape, while unleashing a plague of hoodie wearing locusts to plunder every single flat screen TV and i-everything from Cape Herschel to Point Pelee and from Cape Spear to Clayquot Sound, that’s fine with me.
I don’t thank my Creator every day that I live in Canada, not the US, but today I have a deep and abiding gratitude for our laws, particularly the gun laws that make most forms of armed self defence unlawful or impractical, for everybody.
“You know what’s scary? The utter predictability of this thread, that’s what.
I am not “profiling” anybody here. I’m simply refusing to pretend that I did not foresee Brett, Marty, Slarti, or McTx viewing the case entirely differently from Russell, hairshirt, Laura, or the Count, to name but a few.”
I’d have to go back and look at all the posts and see, but in a sane world a responsible gun owner who believed in a citizen’s right to self defense by handgun would want to distance themselves from Zimmerman–it’s one thing to be walking along minding your own business and then be jumped and quite another to follow a 17 year old around, an action which might very well trigger a confrontation that most sensible people try to avoid. (Again, this is why we have that institution most conservatives support known as the police.) In that sane world what would be happening is that unscrupulous lefties would try to tar all conservatives and gun owners as potential Zimmermans and the conservatives and responsible gun owners would justifiably label this as a smear. In a crazy world the “conservatives” and “responsible gun owners” would embrace Zimmerman as one of their own.
So which world is this one? Like I say, I haven’t been paying close attention.
“I did that in the J Hall bathroom in high school – suburbanite, minivan-driving, father-of-four, engineer that I am. Yeah, scary stuff there.”
This, plus russells earlier exposition on what he and his friends did, means ya’ll managed to grow up presumably without getting in a lot of trouble. It certainly doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong. Do you really justify those things as “everybody did them”?
I did my share of things that I remember as stupid, dangerous and wrong.
I don’t care if he is a thug or a choirboy in this context, the mistakes he made here could have been made by either. But “I did that when I was a 17” is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.
I have been thinking about what to say about the notion that has been floated to the effect that Trayvon was in fact some kind of street fighter who used his skills honed through repeated bouts to quickly debilitate and dominate Zimmerman.
And I have to say that people tend to overlook that any kind of bare-knuckle fighting will, through any repetition at all, result in scarred and calloused knuckles. You would not believe how much it hurts and damages your knuckles to punch something hard, as you would be punching someone in the face. And it takes practice, hitting something repeatedly so that you can hit where you want and how you want every time.
I would think such scarring on the knuckles would be dead obvious to a medical examiner, and so I think it means something that we didn’t see any mention of it.
So. Make of that what you will. It’s nothing new, and probably others have thought of it first.
My whole point here is that when considering evidence, planting your flag on some bit of information and pointing to it like it really means what you think it does is flat-out unwise (even when I do it) if done before competing facts are considered with due weight.
So, for instance, bringing up that George Zimmerman had a restraining order granted against him for domestic violence means something less, I say, when the fact that his restraining order against the other party in the altercation, for the same reasons, was also granted. Not that this means Zimmerman never had issues, just that maybe there were additional factors that merit consideration.
That’s really my only point, here. Not: Zimmerman was completely justified in killing Trayvon Martin. Not: Zimmerman was a total racist that was aching to shoot him a black man. Maybe something more nuanced, if you will; maybe a point of view that considers and weighs all of the facts and not just the ones floated by the narrative I have fastened myself to.
It’s what I’m trying for, and probably failing to achieve. But I don’t see anything wrong with striving in that direction.
But “I did that when I was a 17” is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.
The total destruction of a line of argument that nobody here has made is indeed a wonder to behold. Well done, Marty.
My last comment on the subject, it unlikely that anyone’s description of the events is accurate. The key encounter lasted a very short time, Zimmerman was fighting and no one else had a good view.
One of the key points, that was covered on tv here in detail, after all the tape playing of what Zimmerman said, was that his story changed in minor ways, not in any meaningful way, over all of the interviews. While the prosecutors tried, as has been done in this thread, to paint him as an unreliable source, what most of the lawyers covering the trial got out of it was they failed.
Way back upthread Russell said that either Trayvon’s friends version was wrong or Zimmerman was a perjurer. This simply doesn’t have to be true. Each of those people are remembering what happened and can certainly remember and report it differently.
I also disagree that the list of people(Marty, Brett, McT,slarti) all see this the same. Or that none of those people are willing to assign any moral culpability to Zimmerman, I am. But, going back to the original post, This:
assigns a level of one way blame that simply begs for an alternate view to be presented of Zimmerman, and Trayvon. We didn’t start the discussion of “what kind of person” each of these people is, russell did.
He didn’t say “gosh Zimmerman has to bear some blame for his part in what went on, he certainly made mistakes although probably not criminal”. He called him some pretty nasty things while saying in his last sentence that if Trayvon had been white he would be alive.
Against all evidence actually presented he said Trayvon bore no responsibility except that he was black.
So, yes, there is another “side” to that set of statements and assumptions.
One can reasonably hold both the opionon that GZ is a lying a??hole and that he is not a murderer at the same time and all of that without having any opinion on the character of TM. Unfortunately, many are unable and/or unwilling to do so, so by setting a value for any one of these they automatically fill in the others and claim that no other solution makes any sense. And all of that still leaves out the questions of truth, provability, legality and justice (as a concept not an institition*).
*A web discussion I saw on the topic led to a split between those that claimed that legal:=just and those that invoked cases of summum ius summa iniuria. A few participant were explicit that most of what the nazis did was just because (and only because) it was legalized under German laws. It became unjust only in 1945 (same with slavery before the civil war). They strictly denied the idea that just/justice could be separated from the letter of the law because the former was defined as the latter. I assume they spoke no foreign language where those are separated by the language itself (German makes no difference between liberal and libertarian but differentiates between heiß(hot as in fire) and scharf (hot as in jalapeno pepper)).
bobbyp beat me to it.
I tend to think, though I don’t know, that Martin, once face to face with Zimmerman, lost his cool. I also think he was quite capable of beating Zimmerman’s ass. I just don’t think Martin was particularly thuggish or violent.
I think he was a fairly typical, athletic, pot-smoking, not-all-that-straight-laced kid, put needlessly into a weird and threatening situation that made him uncomfortable – so he ran, then he fought, then he was shot to death.
He had the dumb luck, while walking home from the store in the dark and in the rain, of arousing the suspicion of an overzealous, armed and incompetent neighborhood-watch captain. Doesn’t that suck?
“Doesn’t that suck?”
Yes.
But “I did that when I was a 17” is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.
Fortunately, that wasn’t the argument being made.
The argument being made was that the evidence for Martin being the kind of person who would, absent a good reason, take it upon himself to assault some other person was extremely weak beer.
What did we see? Martin refereeing a sparring match, Martin sparring with a friend wearing gloves, and a video of a
If you want to rebut that, have at it.
Each of those people are remembering what happened and can certainly remember and report it differently.
‘Why are you following me?’
‘What are you doing here?’
Versus:
‘You have a problem?’
‘No’
‘You have one now’
Yes, those are very different memories.
Against all evidence actually presented he said Trayvon bore no responsibility except that he was black.
Again, you fail to accurately take my point.
What I said was Martin would be alive if he was not black. The reason I say that is because IMO Zimmerman would not have found his presence suspicious, were he not black.
The reasons I hold that opinion are:
1. The actual things Martin was doing *according to Zimmerman* are not particularly suspicious to any reasonable person. Walking, looking at houses.
Walking and looking at houses.
2. Zimmerman has a history, in the public record, of making phone calls to the cops about ‘suspicious’ people, who somehow seem to consistently be young black males. He calls about a lot of things – dogs, potholes, disputes with his roommate – but when he calls about ‘suspicious activity’, a young black male almost always is involved.
And when I say ‘young’, that includes ‘approximately 7-9 years old’.
Here, free Google-foo, for your pleasure.
It seems to me the dude had issues. YMMV.
You may find my characterization of Zimmerman as a ‘raving wanna-be mall cop asshole with a gun’ to be unfair. I think it’s right on the money.
Except for the mall cop part, Zimmerman wanted to be a real cop.
Sorry:
and a video of two random guys, neither known or related in any way to Martin, fighting over a bike.
That’s the evidence for Martin as a timebomb waiting to go off.
but in a sane world a responsible gun owner who believed in a citizen’s right to self defense by handgun would want to distance themselves from Zimmerman–it’s one thing to be walking along minding your own business and then be jumped and quite another to follow a 17 year old around, an action which might very well trigger a confrontation that most sensible people try to avoid. (Again, this is why we have that institution most conservatives support known as the police.)
I agree with this up to a point. First, the police are of limited protection. They don’t show up until after the fact. Second, I don’t have a problem with someone standing on their property, armed, if there is *good reason* to do so, adding as an asterisk to this statement that I’ve never had to do so but would if if the situation ever arose. Third, I am somewhat confident Zimmerman never anticipated gunplay. My take is that he doesn’t have the stones for an actual confrontation. I also suspect that he was addled by adrenalin. My objection to the trial is that the evidence did not support a murder or manslaughter charge and that the basis for the trial was not evidence, but political pressure. I don’t like that, ever.
Imo any killing of one person by another, independent of circumstances, require a thorough investigation and, if there is any doubt, a trial.
The impression one got in the GZ case was that the state did not conduct a thorough investigation and based that on GZ’s claim of self-defense alone (while in other cases where there was not even a body it did). Imo the political pressure was necessary to force the state to correct their dereliction of duty. Political pressure on the trial participants during the trial is a completely different matter (illegitimate) as is political pressure to change the stand your ground laws based on the results they have (legitimate).
I don’t get why Zim, who created the situation, gets to use “stand yur ground” as a defense. Yes, according to Zim, Trayvon turned toward him when he (finally) decided to walk away…but so what? Seems to me that Trayvon was standing his ground. he just happened to be standing his ground and winning against an asshole who had a lack-of -stones compensation gun. Andtat’s assuming Zim really did try to walk away. We only has his word for it and his word contradicts all of his ealry actions and his personal history.
It’s a very stupid law. What it amounts to is if you live in Florida and you get into a verbal confrontation with someone for some reason, you had better just shoot that person right away. After all, if you walk away and they follow you, and you get fed up and stand your ground later on, they can shot you, make up any kind of story and get off scott free.
After all, if the state of being full of adrenilin is some kind of excuse for Z, isn’t it even more of an excuse for Trayvon? And people who carry guns around OUGHT to be anticipating gunpay, or at least anticipating the possibility. Sheesh, that’s what a gun is for! It isn’t a decoration!
Did it take political pressure to bring Zim to trial? I’m not sure that’s true. However, way up the thread I posted a link to a list of examples of black people in Florida being convicted of murder when the shooter was very clearly standing his or her ground.
Zim’s case was much murkier. His claim to innocence is primarily based on his version of events, the other witness being dead. He also seemed to be losing the fight he provoked. If a black man can be convicted for shooting an nigthtime intruder in his own back yard, then a man who pursues a teenager (without cause), provokes a confrontation, gets beat up, and shoots the person he picked a fight with, does need to go to trial.
Either that or the state needs to recognize the pattern of appying the laws differentially–but good luck with that.
Or better yet, get rid of the law.
“I don’t get why Zim, who created the situation, gets to use “stand yur ground” as a defense.”
I don’t get why you keep making this claim. It isn’t true.
I don’t get why you keep making this claim. It isn’t true.
Correct. Further, my understanding (perhaps faulty) is that Zimmerman specifically waived his prerogative to use the stand your ground law.
What is also true, however, (again, unless my understanding is faulty), is that the judge cited the stand your ground law in the direction to the jury.
I also take McK’s point that this may never have gone to trial at all absent political pressure. The Sanford Police Department’s claim that they were, in fact, prohibited from arresting and charging Zimmerman due to FL’s self-defense laws was likely correct.
I find that troubling in and of itself, but that is not my personal hash to settle.
Overall, what I find disturbing about the whole shooting match are:
1. It serves, to my eye, as another example of the differential treatment that black and non-black people receive, as a daily matter of course, in the US. I recognize that other folks here don’t see a racial aspect to it, however to my eye it is inescapable.
2. I find it mind-boggling that there is no remedy in the law for a situation like this. I agree with the acquittal on charges of murder and most likely of manslaughter. But really, Zimmerman bears no legal responsibility, and suffers no legal consequence, for his part in this, at all?
And no, I don’t expect anything to come of Holder’s “we’re looking into it” dog and pony show, and frankly I hope nothing comes of it. IMO Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin was undoubtedly related to his skin color (and I recognize that not all will agree with that), but I don’t see this as a racial hate crime. It’s garden variety stupidity.
It just amazes me that this particular flavor of garden variety stupid gets a pass due to the mantra of ‘self-defense’.
Martin didn’t threaten anyone, or anything, except in Zimmerman’s head.
It isn’t true.
Which part(s)?
It seems there is an aspect of SYG that precludes civil penalties. I probably am misinterpreting, not being a lawyer, but 776.032 appears to grant anyone who can justifiably claim SYG immunity from both civil and criminal penalties in the matter.
If that is a correct interpretation, if Zimmerman had successfully invoked SYG he could not have been tried in the first place.
Therefore I conclude that I am wrong.
hsh, the defense did not use the syglaw explicitly but limited itself to simple self-defense. I assume it did so because that is far less (politically) charged or they knew that the judge would do it for them in the jury instructions. Rembember that the defense presented its client as a pur/poor wimp. a SYG claim could have undermined that. SYG is a ‘volontary’ act, legal but not 100% required. Shooting in pure selfdefense plays better with pure victimhood.
russell, just as additional info, in many communities here in FL,including mine, walking around casually, after dark, in the rain, is a suspicious activity. There is almost no foot traffic in many of these developments. So your concept of whether his activity seemed suspicious may be parochial.(Again, something he, being from Miami, might also not have known)
Let’s just pretend that the character of the dead guy is relevant to assessing the probability that he actually was the aggressor, and that if he were a choir boy just back from doing charity work for the blind, a rational person would be a bit more skeptical about Zimmerman’s story.
Smearing the character of the dead guy is exactly equivalent to dredging up the sexual history of a rape victim- ostensibly to show how likely they were to be in dubious circumstances, but actually to show that they were basically rapeable because they gave it away. Here, you apparently think shooting a kid because
he’s blackhe’s talked trash about girls and flipped off the camera is Ok.But individuals are worthy of the protection of the law regardless of whether they talk trash about girls or write graffitti on walls. They do not have to pass some hue-sensitive Bellmore Test Of Moral Worth before the law is willing to protect them from murder. The only thing on your list that could remotely be relevant is getting in fights (since it speaks to agressive tendencies), but I don’t see any indication that Martin was in more than his share of fights in school or was particularly an instigator. Again, Zimmerman’s history of violence is not a huge deal, but obviously more troubling than Martin’s.
So the near certainly that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and would still be alive today if he hadn’t, just doesn’t matter to you. Because it’s not about Martin or Zimmerman, is it?
Because it’s a ridiculous conclusion. You’ve ignored much of the actual evidence in order to get there, accepting Zimmerman’s demonstrably false statments as facts.
But let’s just look at the most telling part of your analysis. You insist on subjecting the black victim to a microscopic character analysis. He talked trash about girls, omfg! But you don’t even pretend to do the same for Zimmerman- a man who’s initial reports of Martin contained serious errors of judgment. A man who lied to the court about his finances. A man who assaulted a cop and a girlfriend. A man whose testimony is demonstrably untrue in some parts.
This man, he doesn’t get to go under the microscope. Whenever anyone tries to discuss it, you say nonsensical things such as ” you think there shouldn’t be neighborhood watchs”. Now me, I don’t think either one particularly needs to go under the microscope (but again, insofar as they do I think Zimmerman’s history of violence is actually more damning than Martin’s).
And no, I don’t expect anything to come of Holder’s “we’re looking into it” dog and pony show, and frankly I hope nothing comes of it. IMO Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin was undoubtedly related to his skin color (and I recognize that not all will agree with that), but I don’t see this as a racial hate crime. It’s garden variety stupidity.
I don’t think it’s out of line for the Justice Department to investigate someone having been killed, and the perpetrator not punished, when the racial aspect was, as you mentioned, “inescapable”. Whether a crime will be charged, etc., will be based on the analysis of the evidence – not just the evidence brought forth in the trial, but evidence of how the investigation and prosecution was handled by the state.
I don’t know what will come of it, but I don’t see any harm in investigating it. And given the [justified, in my view] outrage by many people who do take issue with the fact that African-American male pedestrians are presumed criminals in many areas, I think it’s incumbent upon the government to look into the case.
Not sure why you think an investigation would be a dog and pony show just because it addresses a sense of outrage in a community that has had a lot of difficulty obtaining equal justice under the law.
I don’t care if he is a thug or a choirboy in this context, the mistakes he made here could have been made by either. But “I did that when I was a 17” is not a particularly strong argument against the likelihood he jumped Zimmerman for following him.
The claim isn’t “Martin got in fights in high school and wrote graffitti, so he probably didn’t attack Zimmerman”. It’s that those things arent suggestive that he did, because lots of people do those sorts of things in high school. That he wasn’t a hardened criminal or a gangbanger likely to grab someone who had followed him into an alley and say “you’re going to die tonight mfer”, or instinctively, callously respond with violence when confronted. There isn’t any other record of Martin using violence this way, so it seems very likely that he was provoked or acted out of fear (although this still leaves who swung/grabbed/pushed/etc first ambiguous). Zimmerman’s story that Martin stalked him and attacked him unprovoked therefore seems very unlikely (and again, made more dubious by Zimmerman’s provable lies).
Way back upthread Russell said that either Trayvon’s friends version was wrong or Zimmerman was a perjurer. This simply doesn’t have to be true. Each of those people are remembering what happened and can certainly remember and report it differently.
That is IMO wrong. Zimmerman testified that Martin attacked him while Zimmerman was walking away. The phone caller described a confrontation between the two where Martin is asked why he is being followed and Zimmerman is asking what he is doing in the neighborhood. Both the conversations and the required contexts for the conversations are wildly different.
Witnesses can get specific details wrong, but when one accurately describes a wolfhound and the other a corgi at least one them is lying (or they are talking about different dogs).
in many communities here in FL,including mine, walking around casually, after dark, in the rain, is a suspicious activity
That turns ‘suspicious’ into something of a farce. And as someone who spent a lot of time in Florida (further south, but not all the way to Miami), Georgia, and the Carolinas, Ive never been anywhere where walking in the rain would’ve been described as suspicious. Of a white person, anyway.
So, for instance, bringing up that George Zimmerman had a restraining order granted against him for domestic violence means something less, I say, when the fact that his restraining order against the other party in the altercation, for the same reasons, was also granted. Not that this means Zimmerman never had issues, just that maybe there were additional factors that merit consideration.
I agree. I don’t want to demonize Zimmerman (except to get Brett’s goat), just to point out that dragging tiny flaws of the victim (talking trash about girls?) into the light as indicative of ‘thuggish’ character while ignoring a restraining order for domestic violence is very much straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Let’s just imagine the races reversed, and Righteous Brett going on about how white Martin was just an average teenager testing some limits while black thug Zimmerman assaulted cops and hit his girlfriend. Doesn’t even take much imagination, really.
My objection to the trial is that the evidence did not support a murder or manslaughter charge and that the basis for the trial was not evidence, but political pressure. I don’t like that, ever.
Well, I am in favor of trials when the facts deserve to be looked at by a jury. Even if one thinks Zimmerman not guilty of manslaughter, I think that saying the trial itself was inappropriate would require a couple of orders of magnitude less evidence.
I don’t know Florida’s law very well, but if (as russell? suggested) I take a gun into a dive bar and verbally provoke a fight, wait until a couple of guys are coming at me, and then shoot them- if that’s a crime, then Zimmerman needed a trial. If that’s ok under Florida’s self-defense law, then maybe I need to avoid Florida in the future.
[Or buy a gun, but then I suspect that on some level that’s the real benefit of this sort of thing from the everyone-should-be-armed camp; if the law is such that gun owners can execute non-gun owners more or less at will if there aren’t any witnesses, then logically everyone should want to own a gun, right?]
Zimmerman was originally released by the police due to a Stand Your Ground claim, no?
it was only after political pressure came around that the police bothered looking into things.
Not sure why you think an investigation would be a dog and pony show
Basically, because I don’t think there’s a strong case to be made that this is a hate crime or a violation of Martin’s civil rights.
I suspect the DOJ will follow up to some degree, because Somebody Has To Do Something!!, but I don’t see that there’s really a case to be made, on the merits.
What would be useful would be a statute making Being Stupid While Armed a crime. Sadly, none such exists.
Just saw this:
“I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into,” said the juror. “I think they both could have walked away.”
The juror said Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino made a big impression on her, because he would have been accustomed to dealing with murders and similar cases. He would have known how to spot a liar, and yet he testified that he believed Zimmerman, the juror said.
And even better, this
A judge tossed out a Florida police detective’s statement that he found George Zimmerman credible in his description of fighting with Trayvon Martin, a decision that could benefit prosecutors who are trying to discredit the defendant’s self-defense claims.
….
De la Rionda argued Serino’s statement was improper because one witness isn’t allowed to evaluate another witness’s credibility. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara argued that it’s Serino’s job to decide whether Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Judge Debra Nelson told jurors to disregard the statement.
So the jury was evidently swayed by improper testimony by a detective that was supposed to have been disregarded…
And this after Singleton, on tape, shows that Zimmerman was lying about why he got out of the car. Not sure why Singleton thought that lying about one part of the incident didn’t impact his assessment of Zimmerman’s credibility, or how he figured Zimmerman’s statements about the fight could be accurate (several dozen punches to the nose versus the condition of Martin’s hands and Zimmerman’s face). But then, Singleton had a strong motive for wanting a acquittal, since his department had passed on prosecuting the case (or even giving Zimmerman a drug/alcohol test after the shooting).
Same article:
The prosecutor also questioned Serino about his opinion that Zimmerman didn’t display those negative emotions toward Martin.
De la Rionda played back Zimmerman’s call to police to report the teen walking through his gated community. Zimmerman uses an expletive, refers to “punks” and then says, “These a——-. They always get away.”
The detective conceded that Zimmerman’s choice of words could be interpreted as being spiteful.
Ya think?
While it’s nice to see police not bending the truth (or outright fabricating evidence) in order to secure a conviction, I wish that maybe they weren’t trying so hard to reform that they were actually swaying in the other direction.
Probly they know about Brett’s vast conspiracy to protect black people, and just felt that they had to do a little something to help counteract that.
For some reason in my mind it all comes down to: would a reasonable person view what George Zimmerman did in following Trayvon Martin threatening (or maybe, could Martin have developed a reasonable belief that it was so)?
IMO, the answer is yes and, therefore, Zimmerman forfeits any self-defense claim.
Since it appears that Florida law is to the contrary (absent additional evidence), the law should be changed.
Well, it’s like a wise man once said:
“These a*holes, they always get away.”
😉
[for real: I think the verdict was correct, especially for murder2. I also think the available evidence reflects quite poorly on Mr. Zimmerman. It looks like Martin also screwed up, in that he appears to have chosen to confront Zimmerman instead of continuing back to the house he was staying at. I can concoct multiple scenarios that fit with the evidence available, and the lion’s share of the blame shifts back and forth. Of course, Martin’s dead, so we don’t know his story]
I suspect the DOJ will follow up to some degree, because Somebody Has To Do Something!!, but I don’t see that there’s really a case to be made, on the merits.
I don’t think that the Justice Department’s attempt to make a case here should be derided. It’s pretty clear what’s what under Florida law, and what groups are more likely to suffer from this very expansive view of what people can do in their “self-defense”.
Even shorter:
George Zimmerman is The Fist of Goodness. Except with a gun.
I don’t think that the Justice Department’s attempt to make a case here should be derided.
Fair enough.
Holder has a better understanding of what does, and does not, apply and deserve consideration here than I do. If he decides to move forward, I wish him all due success.
“russell, just as additional info, in many communities here in FL,including mine, walking around casually, after dark, in the rain, is a suspicious activity. There is almost no foot traffic in many of these developments”
Good grief. Not doubting you, but in that case there should be public service messages. I’m at least half-serious. I’ve occasionally gone jogging in the rain after dark, though not in a long time. It’s not something I enjoy much, but I’ve heard some people do. Anyway, nobody ever followed me around.
You really don’t want to walk around casually, after dark, in the rain, and with your hand in your waistband in Florida.
Shoot. On. Sight.
I think it is not yet that long ago, when a black driving not walking was per se suspicious because it had to be assumed that the car was stolen. And a (white) schoolmate of mine visiting the US in the 80ies got stopped in a Southern state by the local sheriff for walking because that was suspicious behaviour for a white person (it was during the day).
Cops stopped for me maybe ten years ago in East Texas, walking along a road between towns. We were staying nearby and just out for a walk, cop just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a problem- but I guess it was pretty rare there.
Otoh, it was outside of town, with no services to walk to for miles. Twin Lakes is urban, with all kinds of services within a half-mile or so. I havent lived anywhere that both had very close services and didn’t have enough walkers to make them un-suspicious. Even in the rain, some people (eg kids) don’t have cars but want a burger etc.
Marty asked: “Do you really justify those things as “everybody did them”?” Well, Marty, in the present context, I pretty much do, tout court. If everyone, or very nearly everyone, has engaged in the conduct that Brett cited when he smeared Trayvon Martin as a “thug” then the word “thug” as used by Brett has no meaning. The most recent posts strongly suggest, Trayvon Martin’s “crimes” consist of the most petty vandalism, of having stuff in his locker he couldn’t produce receipts for, and fisticuffs with young men his own age.
That doesn’t set him apart from most kids. Anybody’s son could have been followed, accosted, and ultimately shot by George Zimmerman. The verdict may be right according to Florida law. In that case, I note once more, with gratitude, the existence of an efficiently policed border between me and mine and the State of Florida.
Trashing Trayvon Martin’s memory will not successfully obscure the fact that anyone’s kid could have died that night. Clutching pearls over a supposedly “thug” lifestyle, with all the racial anxieties that word has come to reflect, will not cancel out the lesson that “concealed carry” laws led to a horrific tragedy.
Forty-odd years ago, in Southern California, my father – a white minister in his 60s, as dignified a man as you could ever see – used to walk a couple of miles every evening for his health and frequently was questioned by the police (albeit politely). “Failure to possess (or use) a car” is considered suspicious in many American jurisdictions, FWIW.
“I think it is not yet that long ago, when a black driving not walking was per se suspicious because it had to be assumed that the car was stolen.”
Somebody I knew once said this happened to her. She’s white, but the driver of the car was black, and so the car was stopped. This was in New Jersey, probably in the 90’s.
There is a very good article by Will Saletan which seems to me eminently sensible on all points – with the glaring exception of his assertion that “guns” had nothing to do with this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
To someone from a country which unaccountably fails to maintain a right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, it seems bizarre to be asserting that the routine carrying of guns does nothing to make the right to self defence a license to kill even in the most ambiguous of circumstances.
To my taste Saletan goes too far into the pox-on-both-houses routine. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. We stone-cold know that Zimmerman made a series of bad assumptions/inferences, and foolish actions (eg leaving the car, not quickly identifying himself as part of the Neighborhood Watch). Martin- well, the best evidence we have for his misjudgment is that he used the word “cracker”. Being spooked by someone pursuing you is pretty rational.
Now, it’s *possible* that Martin reacted to Zimmerman’s perceived race. Or that Martin overreacted (even violently) to being pursued. But there isn’t any actual evidence of that other than Zimmerman’s deeply flawed testimony.
But a lot of what he says sounds Ok to me- “not guilty” does not mean “innocent”, any more than “not proven” means “disproven”. And further action here (vigilante-ism or a federal case) don’t seem at all warranted by the circumstances.
Better follow-up would be trying to get Florida’s laws changed, so that vigilantes with legal guns can’t start fights they’re unable to finish without resorting to lethal force.
“He described Martin’s race,” wrote Saletan, “and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them”.
Perhaps Will Saletan can produce the 911 call where Zimmerman describes a ‘young white male”. There aren’t any you say? Mercy me.
Saletan is flat wrong. The pervasiveness of racism kicked this whole tragedy off. That a young black male still cannot walk down certain streets without coming under immediate suspicion in this country makes me burn with anger and shame.
And further action here (vigilante-ism or a federal case) don’t seem at all warranted by the circumstances.
I totally agree about vigilantism, so let’s please put that aside.
But let’s talk a bit more about “federal case”. This is the Civil Rights statute, 18 USC 1983:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress”
Think about the Florida laws, who might be affected, who was injured in this case, and some of the surrounding factors. Obviously, the statute is hugely subject to case law interpreting it, but I don’t think it’s out of line (or a dog and pony show) to investigate whether what went wrong in this case was a violation of this law.
Or other laws, for that matter. I’m not out to get Zimmerman, who I personally think is an ignorant fool. But people like Zimmerman shouldn’t be allowed room to do what he did, and it shouldn’t just be a matter of where you live in the United States, whether you can walk around after dark with Skittles.
I totally agree with bobbyp at 7:16 pm.
He says That a young black male still cannot walk down certain streets without coming under immediate suspicion in this country makes me burn with anger and shame.
And the fact that he can’t is a matter for the Justice Department to investigate. Sure, it might not pan out according to the legal framework that exists right now, but it’s worth the effort.
In case anyone is interested, the Tampa Bay Times** has an article on how Stand Your Ground has been playing out elsewhere in Florida:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
I am particularly taken by this paragraph:
“People often go free under “stand your ground” in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.”
** I have no idea what the editorial inclinations of the Tampa Bay Time are. I just found the article interesting when I stumbled across it. But note that they are talking about how the law as applied is different from what the lawmakers envisioned (or at least said they envisioned) when passing it.
Call me a cynic but I believe the laws work exactly how some of their main pushers intended them to work. Only the racial component of dealing with the results was not planned (but is tolerated). From a certain depraved perspective there was simply not enough lead in the air and consequently not enough demand for the products to put it there. These laws incentivize the use of lethal force. Ideally (from this POV) it will end as a Mexican standoff involving everyone.
I am not sure what point it is you’re trying to make, here. You’re not making any kind of case for that racism was a factor. Your incredulity is not making any kind of point for you, so I think you’re obligated to make your own.
“That a young black male still cannot walk down certain streets without coming under immediate suspicion in this country makes me burn with anger and shame.”
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.
I just think that more weight is being put on this case than it can bear – both by those who agree with you, and by those who claim a dead teenager was entirely to blame for his own demise.
The only thing clear to me from this case is that I am entirely unable to judge on the basis of the evidence presented what went on in the heads of either Zimmerman or Martin (I seem to be in a very small minority on that basis).
If Zimmerman is a racist (and on the evidence, I’m a lot less certain of that than I am about (say) Brett Bellmore), then that still does not make him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of either murder or manslaughter.
I am appalled that concealed carry seems now to be constitutionally protected across the US – not least because the common law right of self defense effectively allows armed individuals to kill and escape any criminal sanction, providing the circumstances are sufficiently murky.
Having said all that, I can see no way that the further pursuit of Zimmerman in a federal case will do anything to address the problems of either racism or universal access to firearms.
A civil suit for wrongful death, with its lower associated standard of proof, is rather more likely to be effective.
I am not sure what point it is you’re trying to make, here
Then you just don’t get it. Therein lies the tragedy.
This.
It’s not an effective rhetorical move to ridicule others for not getting points that you’ve neglected to properly make.
Just wanted to commend Nigel on his very thoughtful post of 8:07.
I personally think Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin was, minimally, in no small part due to his skin color. That opinion is based, as noted upthread, on Zimmerman’s own history, as found in the public record.
That said, IMO that makes Zimmerman about average on the ‘racist’ scale.
You can take that to mean ‘not really racist at all’, or you can take it as an indication that racism persists as a stubborn, ubiquitous, and reflexive trait in the American mind.
As you wish.
What I wish (but don’t really hope) would emerge from all of this would be two things:
1. A candid acknowledgement of the persistence of racial bias in the US, and of the constant background (and often foreground) level of petty BS that black people and other minorities live with, each and every day, purely due to the color of their skin.
2. A frank discussion of the reasonable limits of the private use of firearms. An environment where you can, literally, provoke another person into a fight, then shoot them dead in the name of self-defense, and walk away with no legal consequence is, IMO, straight up insane.
And I’m not interested in revisiting yet again the question of whether Zimmerman provoked Martin sufficiently to justify Martin’s punching Zimmerman. My point is more general.
A lot of people get shot in this country due to situations that, absent a gun, would result in, at worst, a black eye. That’s messed up. In my opinion.
Thanks again to Nigel for his post.
And of course his sex. Because we had statements from others who lived in his neighborhood that it was a bunch of black boys.
There are other testimonies to that effect that can be found via Google.
So: racist AND sexist.
What I find interesting is that over here blacks range on the perceived threat scale only slightly above grannies without umbrellas. And that with anti-black racism still widespread (according to very recent studies). In other words ordinary Germans see blacks as inferior because they are black but they do not see them as a bodily threat. They would not want their daughters to date blacks but they do not generally fear them as violent thugs. That position is taken by young Turks and adult East-Europeans. I remember times when Southern Europeans were the default thieves in public thought but that seems to have more or less disappeared (the one solid constant is the Polish car thieves which has a solid base in fact since indeed since most stolen German cars transit through Poland). So over here there is ‘racial’ profiling but different groups fill the slots than in the US. We’d have a potential Turkish Obama but he’s in the leadership of the Green Party and thus unlikely to become chancellor (foreign minister maybe. That’s the traditional post for the smaller coalition party leader who’s also vice-chancellor).
we had statements from others who lived in his neighborhood that it was a bunch of black boys.
And, of course, if some black boys allegedly rob houses in your neighborhood, the sight of any black boy you don’t know who is walking down the street looking at houses automatically calls for tailing in your car, a call the cops, and following on foot.
And, of course, if some black boys rob a house in your neighborhood, no white or brown or yellow or red or green boy would ever do likewise.
And, of course, black boys in this country are never subject to undue harrassment simply because they are (a) black and (b) boys.
I’m not a mind reader, so I confine my statements to Zimmerman’s motivation as purely a matter of my opinion. In my opinion, Zimmerman saw a black boy walking around and his antenna went up.
If you find that unfair, I can live with that. If what I’m saying was untrue of Zimmerman, it’s by god true of tens of millions of other people.
I mean, not to belabor this unduly, but one of the ‘suspicious activity’ calls Zimmerman made to 911 was about a black male, age 7 to 9 years old.
7 to 9 years old.
The man had issues.
we had statements from others who lived in his neighborhood that it was a bunch of black boys.
My think aligns with russell’s that this is more indicative of an American problem than Zimmerman being some kind of unusual racist.
But in counter to your point here, if there had been a robbery by a white male, would Zimmerman (or most non-black people) start looking suspiciously at all of the white males in the area (thinking like Zimmerman, this white guy is probably high, armed, and a hardened criminal)? We can’t know one way or the other, and maybe our guesses are just reflections of our own prejudices in the matter, but I strongly suspect that ‘black males’ fall into the suspicious category much easier than other groups of people due to latent racism. Just like we notice the bumper sticker of the opposing party when we get cut off in traffic and think it’s indicative of the party’s philosophy and character, but if it’s our party then we just think “wotta jerk”.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to be a remarkable racist in order for this incident to be a distressing point about America and race. In fact, I think that if Im right and he isn’t an exception, it’s a much more serious statement.
Well, don’t foregt that Gohmert’s terror babies are running rampant, so a 7-9 year old (and there could have been a dozen extra behind the bushes) can only be the shock troops.
Re, the ‘7-9 year old’, as David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy points out, racial animus is again open to question:
‘…So I spent less then a minute googling and found the more detailed police description of his call (page 37 of the link), which paraphrased Zimmerman as follows: “Advsd is walking alone & is not supervised on busy street compl concerned for well-being.”’
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/327330-george-zimmerrman-911-call-history.html
Again, I agree entirely with russel’s points above regarding –
1. A candid acknowledgement of the persistence of racial bias in the US…
2. A frank discussion of the reasonable limits of the private use of firearms…
– but relitigating this case is unlikely to help with either of them.
one of the ‘suspicious activity’ calls Zimmerman made to 911 was about a black male, age 7 to 9 years old
presumably another of the “assholes” who “always get away”.
racial animus is again open to question
As regards the 7-9 year old, I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to be a remarkable racist in order for this incident to be a distressing point about America and race. In fact, I think that if Im right and he isn’t an exception, it’s a much more serious statement.
BINGO!
You don’t have to be. There are a number of other people in the neighborhood who thought that, too.
For some reason. I honestly don’t know if there were witnesses, but people thought they knew.
In my neighborhood, the lookout is for a black woman wearing scrubs. If a black woman who is not known to reside in the neighborhood is spotted walking through and paying close attention to houses, it’s a good bet that someone will challenge. Even call the police. If it were an unknown white or hispanic woman or man, and a any person of matching description was known to be associated with the gang hitting my neighborhood: same thing.
Not saying that this is the process Zimmerman went through, just that any sane neighborhood watch would tend to focus on known characteristics, if any, of the people who were doing the break-ins. In my neighborhood, we have one of the suspects on video. We know that she works with a black man who does the actual B&E, but we don’t know what that guy looks like as well because he’s not directly on camera the way she is.
…it’s a good bet that someone will challenge. Even call the police.
Will they do it while carrying a loaded pistol?
It’s not an effective rhetorical move to ridicule others for not getting points that you’ve neglected to properly make.
There was no ridicule…just resignation. However, if you wish to make rhetorical points yourself, you might actually take a few minutes to explain the curt dismissal of a point previously written. Somehow, this does not strike me as too much to ask.
The link to the Coates article (“The Banality of Richard Cohen and Racist Profiling”) was meant to be part of the further clarification you appeared to desire, but were disinclined to ask for.
Looks like I botched the html stuff, so here’s another try:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-banality-of-richard-cohen-and-racist-profiling/277871/
Your comments welcome.
Have a nice day.
You don’t have to be. There are a number of other people in the neighborhood who thought that, too.
Which is completely consistent with implicit racism being a widespread problem, as opposed to Zimmerman being a special case.
If it were an unknown white or hispanic woman or man, and a any person of matching description was known to be associated with the gang hitting my neighborhood: same thing.
But if there was a white person who didn’t match a known description, would you get suspicious because- hey, white guy! Probly on drugs and armed and up to no good. I suspect not.
I agree that most people might react to individuals of any race/gender/etc if they matched a particular known description. It’s worth stressing here that Zimmerman made a lot of mistaken observations about Martin (armed, high, up to no good, something wrong with him)- not about him matching a description, but mistaken observations fueled by something- racism? anxiety? anger? We’ll never know if a white kid walking into the complex would’ve been the beneficiary of similar mistaken observations by Zimmerman, but it’s not a great leap to think that race may have played a part in his mistakes.
At least one person making that assessment were themselves black.
the process Zimmerman went through
“there’s a real suspicious guy”
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good, like he’s on drugs or something”
“It’s raining and he’s just walking around”
“he was just staring looking at all the houses”
“now he’s just staring at me”
“He’s got his hand in his waistband”
“Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is”
“These assholes they always get away”
No need for mind reading, these are Zimmerman’s own words, from the public record, in real time, as he observed Martin.
Who was, in turn, walking home from the convenience store with some iced tea and candy.
You could sell me on the idea that, due to their having been burglaries by young black men, Zimmerman was more inclined to notice a young black man he did not recognize.
The thought process documented above goes several light years beyond ‘notice’.
I’m sorry your neighborhood has been prey to burglaries, I’m sure that sucks.
At least one person making that assessment were themselves black.
And, connecting the dots of your thoughts here, that couldn’t possibly have anything do with racism, because… ?
Will they do it in a box? Will they do it with a fox?
I have no idea who in my neighborhood goes armed. But people carrying unloaded pistols around seems fairly silly.
I didn’t curtly dismiss anything. If you had something that was said previously in mind, I can’t dismiss it if I am not aware of what you were referring to, can I?
Coates’ takedown of Richard Cohen is fine as it is, but I don’t know of anyone at all that takes Cohen seriously; right, left or dead center.
Not necessarily. But if he didn’t live there, and was behaving suspiciously, then I might want to keep an eye on him. OTOH if there was a poorly-groomed middle-aged white guy who had been spotted trying to break into places, and I saw a guy of that general description wandering through my neighborhood, and I didn’t recognize him, then I would tend to want to keep my eye on him.
It’s just about the same size leap as you supposed Zimmerman made. Try that on, or don’t.
This sort of requires that you believe that Martin was not in fact behaving oddly. I haven’t excluded that, yet.
“These assholes” doesn’t necessarily refer to Martin. He wasn’t, after all, a plural entity.
Not nearly so silly as people carrying around loaded pistols.
An unloaded pistol makes for a decent (but expensive) paperweight, but isn’t much good for anything else. If I had a choice between carrying an unloaded pistol and leaving it locked at home in the safe, I’d choose the latter.
I continue to be baffled by this concept of not recognizing someone who is in your neighborhood, as if everyone instantly recognizes everyone who “lives” in the “neighborhood,” and thus nonrecognition is an automatic reason for suspicion.
Do people actually know, on sight, everyone who lives in their neighborhood (and how do you define that?) and thus can tell who does and doesn’t belong, just by looking at them?
“And, connecting the dots of your thoughts here, that couldn’t possibly have anything do with racism, because… ?”
And, connecting the dots of your thoughts here, this couldn’t have been because the recent burglars had been black, and have nothing to do with racism, because….?
This sort of requires that you believe that Martin was not in fact behaving oddly. I haven’t excluded that, yet.
When someone is “behaving oddly”, a term can include and be caused by many things, calling 911 is an appropriate response (because maybe they need a cop, or maybe an ambulance). Shooting them is not an appropriate response. Of course, if you hang around your neighborhood with a loaded gun looking for people whom you don’t recognize (great Welcome Wagon!), or who are “behaving oddly,” chances are someone’s going to be shot.
Go away italics.
This sort of requires that you believe that Martin was not in fact behaving oddly. I haven’t excluded that, yet.
The only record we have of Martin’s behavior was Zimmerman’s account. That is, in fact, why I included it in my last post.
Per Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain and looking at houses. He also looked at Zimmerman, which is unsurprising, given that Zimmerman, having followed him in his car, now parked and watching every move he made.
Zimmerman also says he ‘looked like he was on drugs’, and ‘was up to no good’, etc etc etc. But he provides no actual description of the behavior that leaves him with these impressions.
Based on the information we have, what we know is that Martin was (a) walking on a rainy night and (b) looking at houses.
“These assholes” doesn’t necessarily refer to Martin. He wasn’t, after all, a plural entity.
There is no reasonable way to read a transcript of Zimmerman’s call and think he was not including Martin among ‘these assholes’.
Believe it or not, I’m not looking to crucify Zimmerman. Legally I think the acquittal was sound, I frankly do not think there is a federal case to be made, and IMO even a civil wrongful death action would be a stretch. IANAL, those are just my opinions.
I do not think Zimmerman was particularly racist, and I do not he think began that day or any day with an intent to kill himself a black boy. I frankly don’t think he had any ill intent at all.
I think he found Martin’s presence suspicious, and wanted to take some kind of action about it. He went beyond what he ought to have done, and resulting events led to the death of Martin.
My point about Zimmerman and race is simply that Martin, being a young black man living in the United States of America, was more likely to attract suspicion than young men who are not black.
The fact that there had been burglaries by young black men is absolutely pertinent, but does not negate the point in my previous paragraph.
Martin was not, in fact, a burglar. He was not, as far as anyone knows, including from Zimmerman’s own account, doing anything that any reasonable person would find ‘suspicious’. He was, literally, walking to his father’s house after going to the 7/11.
You may not do so, but I find ZImmerman’s reactions as recorded in the 911 call to be remarkably overwrought, borderline hysterical. I’m not reading anything into it, I’m commenting on the difference between what Martin was apparently actually doing, and how Zimmerman reacted to it.
Maybe he would have had the same reaction to a white kid if white kids had been the burglars. Ditto for brown, yellow, red, or any other combination of color, gender, and age.
In that case, I misjudge him. My apologies for doing so. But he would, in fact, be unusually color blind if that’s the case.
I’d also like to point out that, from Martin’s perspective, the incident looked like this:
I’m walking home from the 7/11.
Some guy is following me in his car.
Now he’s parked the car and is watching me.
I’m going to run away, down the sidewalk between the rows of houses so he can’t see me or follow me in his car.
He got out of his car and is following me on foot.
Holy crap, there he is.
Some folks claim that the blame for all that happened falls to Martin, because (they assume) threw the first punch.
IMO it’s completely reasonable for Martin to have felt personally threatened by ZImmerman – far, far, far more than the reverse – and throwing the first punch – assuming that he did so – was not an unreasonable course of action.
OTOH, shooting somebody certainly could be an appropriate response to somebody straddling your body, raining punches on you. You know, the bit that happened after the “behaving oddly”, but before the “shooting them”?
Having to leave stuff like this out, to make your moral reasoning sound reasonable, is a bad sign, don’t you think?
somebody straddling your body, raining punches on you
Zimmerman woke up one morning and that was happening? Read russell’s comment.
Having to leave stuff like this out, to make your moral reasoning sound reasonable, is a bad sign, don’t you think?
What I think is that it’s not worth my time to try to engage in a discussion with you – specifically you, Brett – about anything concerning (a) black people or (b) firearms.
If I ever rain punches on someone, I sure hope he looks a lot worse than Zimmerman did that night at the police station. And I would expect my hands to be in a lot worse shape than what I’ve read Martin’s did. But, whatever…all the evidence was consistent with Martin’s story, right?
All along, I went with the premise that Martin could beat Zimmerman’s ass, which I still do. But the more I look at it, I don’t think he actually did, or even came reasonably close to it. Even the lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head were pretty minor. If he didn’t have his head shaved, I don’t even think the blood from them would have been visible through his hair. Scalp wounds bleed a lot.
I can’t say what sort of fear Zimmerman might have experienced, so I can’t say he didn’t believe he was defending himself against death or severe injury. But it doesn’t look like he had much reason to experience that level of fear. He looked like he was in a very minor scuffle, not like he was beaten to within an inch of his life.
Make of it what you will, but further consideration of the photos of Zimmerman has me doubting his story more and more.
But people carrying unloaded pistols around seems fairly silly.
Do you ever go to a shooting range? Do you think people who do leave their guns loaded when going to or from? (Well, maybe the stupid ones.)
The point about the gun being loaded is that it is ready to be shot, not just something you happen to have with you at the time.
(Now you can focus on the word “carry,” assuming it means “in your hand.” You can write something oh-so-witty about people holding their unloaded pistols in their hands on the way home from the range. Won’t that be a hoot? …and very persuasive, too.)
Zimmerman woke up one morning and that was happening?
of course. for Brett, the story starts right there. nothing came before, and the fact that nothing in the physical evidence supports a “rain” of blows is irrelevant. Brett has his conclusion, and we’re all too hung up on our agendas for not jumping to it.
I don’t generally walk to the firing range, it being several miles away and not typically closely co-located with residential areas. And when I do, I have my firearm in a rifle carrier, and my wife’s in a lockbox. And, yes, unloaded. But unloaded specifically because of the range’s rules that firearms arrive unloaded.
Not that any of that has anything at all to do with this situation, but you did ask. I’m not sure why, but you did.
Bottom line is, and this is 100% my own opinion: there’s no reason that I can see for someone to have an unloaded firearm on their person. If you’re carrying, you should be carrying a loaded weapon.
Caveat appropriately with my highly limited experience in carrying a weapon, which I never do.
I’m not sure why, but you did.
I’m not sure, either. I should have ignored your comment about the silliness of my using the modifier “loaded.” But one can make a distinction between someone, in his car, following suspicious characters, who also happens to have an unloaded weapon in his car, versus someone, in his car, who has a loaded weapon on his person, ready to fire.
But thanks for at least partially making my prediction come true.
Now I can again regret responding to almost completely beside-the-point trivia.
Of course, for most of you, this story seems to have this gap in it, immediately prior to the shot being fired, during which Zimmerman got a broken nose, a couple of black eyes, and assorted contusions. And which has to remain a gap, in order to render the decision to pull the trigger unreasonable.
“and throwing the first punch – assuming that he did so – was not an unreasonable course of action”
That’s where we part company. I wonder if this contributes to some people thinking concealed carry is a bad idea? They’ve got such a low threshold for initiating violence, that the only way they can see to prevent widespread death is to limit the means of it?
That’s where we part company
The number of places where we part company would fill the Grand Canyon to overflowing.
I’m good with that.
They’ve got such a low threshold for initiating violence….
Many, if not most, humans seem to suffer from this propensity. History shows this. The highly disputed facts (er, testimony) surrounding this encounter show it, too.
Aha! We can agree about something. I’m good with disagreeing with you lot, too.
I live in a world where the good guys don’t start fights, but they sure as hell finish them. Where you lose any moral high ground you might have had, when you throw the first punch.
I don’t think we occupy the same moral universe.
And which has to remain a gap, in order to render the decision to pull the trigger unreasonable.
It’s the pursuit leading up to it that was unreasonable, or at least unnecessary and ill advised, even if ultimately pulling the trigger was a reasonable response.
But it is indeterminate whether or not Zimmerman’s nose was broken. You also seem to ignore the lack of damage to Martin’s hands, with which he was supposed to have rained punches – bare knuckled – onto Zimmerman.
And you can’t seem to admit that it is Zimmerman’s word almost exclusively that you are basing your position on, as though he wouldn’t have any interest in making his case look as good as possible, while knowing the only other person who really knows what happened is dead and can’t contradict him.
I understand that jurors don’t really have a lot of leeway as that goes when it comes to sentencing, and that they may have done the right thing under the law. But that only means they at least had some doubt as to whether he committed murder or manslaughter, not that they are utterly convince he didn’t, as you seem to be.
Do you find Zimmerman utterly trustworthy? If so, why?
Make that convicting, not sentencing.
Where you lose any moral high ground you might have had, when you throw the first punch.
and therefore are free game for being shot to death…
I don’t know of anyone at all that takes Cohen seriously
That must explain his prominent editorial position at a nationally read newspaper. Like you, I fail to understand what keeps him there, but I personally don’t know the Owners of the Washington Post either.
Perhaps I should dial back the liberal anger a bit, but what really chaps my hide is the implicit assumptions I hear all the time (i.e., commonly in my interactions with standard issue white folks) to wit:
“Hey, I’m not a racist, what’s the problem?”
or
“That was way back before I was born. This is now.”
or
“Hey they can vote now. We passed Civil Rights. What’s the matter with them?”
and lastly,
“Why can’t they just act like us?”
After depositing a few more places in the Grand Canyon, I guess it’s time to move on….
I don’t think we occupy the same moral universe.
Nor do I.
I live in a world where the good guys don’t start fights
of course you don’t. you live in a world where everything is just how you want to see it.
Not necessarily. But if he didn’t live there, and was behaving suspiciously, then I might want to keep an eye on him.
In this case, the kid was living (at least, staying) there. And while Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious, Zimmerman also thought he was on drugs and probably armed. Given that the verifiable things Zimmerman thought were true weren’t, I don’t have any reason to think that Martin was acting suspiciously.
Once Martin started reacting to Zimmerman, Zimmerman took those things as indicators of suspicious activity too. As if taking a second look at a guy who pulls over and stares at you, or running away when the guy drives along slowly following you, is not the behavior of a normal person.
Since we know Zimmerman made several wrong assumptions/observations of Martin, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask whether those were partially founded in race. And lacking any other rationale (eg if Zimmerman reported all of the teens who walked around the complex as suspicious), I don’t see any other viable hypothesis. If we exclude ‘Martin was walking home from the 7-11 practicing acting like he was stoned criminal’.
It’s just about the same size leap as you supposed Zimmerman made. Try that on, or don’t.
My leap is based on three things:
1)there isn’t any reason to think Martin’s behavior would’ve been suspicious to an objective observer, since the only evidence to that effect is from a source known to get lots of things wrong that night
2)presumably there are lots of people on foot in the area (it’s right across the street from a shopping area), so there were likely lots of candidates for Zimmerman to mistakenly consider ‘suspicious’. Does he think all of the pedestrians, or young pedestrians, or young male pedestrians are on drugs and ‘acting wrong’?
3)In my experience there is a lot of low-level racism in America. There’s quite a bit of statistical evidence that this is the case. That’s not a damnation of Zimmerman or America or white people, low-level racist assumptions are very hard to recognize sometimes, let alone shake free of.
You can call that reasoning ‘the same size’ as Zimmerman thinking a black kid walking home is inherently suspicious.
This sort of requires that you believe that Martin was not in fact behaving oddly. I haven’t excluded that, yet.
Possible, but no reason to think that it was the case. This is similar to the folks who allege that Zimmerman *wanted* to kill a black person and picked out a target. Possible, not excluded by the physical evidence, but with no other reason for believing it true other than the personal satisfaction it presumably brings IMO.
I should qualify that a bit: maybe Martin had some bounce in his step. Maybe he jumped up and touched a tree branch, or stumbled over a crack in a sidewalk. Maybe he laughed about a joke he heard earlier in the evening. Im not saying he walked like an accountant to a business meeting, just that I don’t see any reason to suspect his behavior would’ve led an objective observer to think he was a drugged-up criminal. And that’s exactly what I mean by low-level or implicit racism- the stuff that creeps up from the basement and makes a middle-aged woman laughing to herself normal but a young black man laughing to himself ‘probably on drugs’.
“These assholes” doesn’t necessarily refer to Martin. He wasn’t, after all, a plural entity.
“These” puts Martin in a larger group of assholes who get away. I cannot imagine how you’re parsing this sentence so it does not include Martin in the group, unless (like the waistband statement) you imagine Zimmerman has decided to toss out a non sequitur here. I could grant that maybe Zimmerman’s thought here is incompletely formed and he meant to imply that *if* Martin was casing houses *then* he was an asshole who might get away, but that’s pretty clearly not what he said. And what he said is also consistent with Zimmerman having already reached a conclusion about Martin- which has the benefit of being consistent with Zimmerman’s other beliefs (eg that Martin was on drugs),statements, and actions. Note that there is no transcript support for the theory that Zimmerman hadn’t already decided on Martin’s guilt.
And, connecting the dots of your thoughts here, this couldn’t have been because the recent burglars had been black, and have nothing to do with racism, because….?
Brett, I am always very careful when answering one person’s question to another. You should take similar care, you have failed to connect the dots. Charles suggests that if a black person does something it cannot be racist against black people. You apparently didnt understand that. One can use similar logic to demonstrate that the holocaust was not anti-semitic.
Aparently you were in such a hurry to write about black burglars that you couldn’t be bothered with the whole reading comprehension bit. Trying writing “black people are lazy and steal stuff” one hundred times on the blackboard, get it out of your system, and then come back here when you’re ready for reasoned discussion where you don’t just repeat that over and over as if it were responsive.
If you do the one hundred and still haven’t got it out of your system, then maybe hang around the blackboard some more. Or more likely whiteboard, now that I think of it…
OTOH, shooting somebody certainly could be an appropriate response to somebody straddling your body, raining punches on you. You know, the bit that happened after the “behaving oddly”, but before the “shooting them”?
The hillarious thing about this comment to me (might as well find hillarity where one can in this kind of a situation)- Brett is sticking with “behaving oddly” as part of the scenario. He can’t even bring himself to say something about how Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he goes from Martin actin all crazy-like to Martin raining punch (ME said damage was easily attributable to one good punch) on Zimmerman, to Zimmmerman shooting.
That’s where we part company.
Right. You’d have someone follow along slowly in their car while you walked. Then you get scared and run, and they follow on foot. They confront you in the alley, and maybe reach into their jacket (for a phone, it turns out)- and you, Brett, are going to wait patiently to see if what emerges is a weapon or something innocuous? You’d tell your kids to do that?
I find that so frankly unbelievable that Im not even sure you believe it. Maybe that’s why your story has to jump from ‘Martin acting crazy’ to ‘Martin raining punch down on Zimmerman’. Processing the middle parts is uncomfortable for you.
I live in a world where the good guys don’t start fights, but they sure as hell finish them.
You live in a coyboy movie. Id fear for the black people who live near you, but 1)there probably aren’t any and 2)Im guessing the movie would stop playing in your head about the time you crapped your pants.
In the real world, sometimes you can’t wait for the bad guy(s) to throw the first punch (secure in the knowledge that the scriptwriter will keep you safe). Also, in the real world goodness is not a determining factor in who wins fights. Thinking that is genuinely childish and silly.
Where you lose any moral high ground you might have had, when you throw the first punch.
It’s backwards-reasoning land- we know Zimmerman didn’t throw the first punch (despite his history of violence and angry statements about people getting away) because if he *did* then he couldn’t be the good guy. And he shot hisself a n&$$#^, so we know he’s the good guy.
I think *Brett* feels better about Zimmerman than Zimmerman does about himself. Brett’s positively ecstatic, he’s got Zimmy cast as John Wayne, waiting for the thug Martin to throw the first punch because he knows he’s got Right on his side.
I think *Brett* feels better about Zimmerman than Zimmerman does about himself.
Maybe, but I’m struck by Zimmerman’s complete lack of any appearance of remorse, regret, sadness or any emotional pain whatsoever at killing a 17-year-old kid. I guess it was God’s plan, so what’s to be bothered about?
At least Zimmerman hasn’t portrayed himself as a hero vanquishing a bad guy; he says he wouldn’t do anything differently- which is pretty bizarre- but he’s not suggesting he did the community a service by shooting a teenager. Brett’s trying to force this ugly scenario into a movie script is kinda sickening.
It’s like someone translated the famous essay “The Pussification of the American Male” into a screenplay. Real men
stalk teenagers, get their asses kicked, and go gun after getting popped in the nosestrike down evil through sheer willpower.Obama weighs in.
My guess is that the reaction to his comments will break down along about the same lines as the commentary in this thread.
An Obama story.
“But it is indeterminate whether or not Zimmerman’s nose was broken.”
You have got to be kidding me. I’ve had broken noses before, (And have the crooked beak to prove it.) and I didn’t look half as bad as Zimmerman did after them!
Coming a bit late to the discussion. My take:
1) The whole situation is sad. It’s just sad all around.
2) The verdict can be explained easily IMHO just by the bad (again IMHO) prosecution. I don’t even have to go to Florida’s laws to get there. But if you do, then it becomes all the more understandable. Even more when the evidence is lacking (due in part to one party being dead, I get that) and conflicting. I can take the evidence in my head and spin it either way, but I have to make assumptions to get to the ultimate conclusion. IMHO, there is nothing absolutely determinative in the evidence. I’ll bet the jury thought the same thing. My point: You don’t have to go to race to explain this verdict. Nowhere near it. So don’t. Please. The verdict is evidence of nothing when it comes to race.
3) As a former concealed carry permit holder (I’ll probably reapply sometime, but maybe I won’t), I had it drilled into me that I needed to be prepared to get the crap beaten out of me. Because pulling the weapon out was a last resort. I had to be sure I needed it to protect myself or others from deadly harm. I’m not sure Zimmerman got to that point. OTOH, most people don’t think (or see for that matter) very well after getting their nose broken unless you spar a lot. I spar and speak from experience. You can pound on my body pretty good and I do alright but hit me in the head? Not so good. So I take all the comments about Zimmerman not being beat up that bad with a grain of salt. He may very well have thought the end was near (as I did last time I failed to block a spinning heal kick to my unprotected head).
The comments in the media about Zimmerman’s case leading to more violence from permit holders is, IMHO, pure bunk. Who would want to go through what he has gone through? It has reinforced EVERYTHING I learned in getting my permit: 1) If you take another’s life, you will be prosecuted for homicide. Period. Put your weapon on the ground and hold out your hands for the cuffs. 2) Your life will become a living hell. And it somewhat should. Taking a life is huge deal even when justified. So why the concern that normally good, law abiding citizens (as the vast majority of permit holders are) are all of a sudden going to flip out? This case, IMHO, is going to help keep guns in the holster unless actually needed. Zimmerman nay not be going to jail, but honestly, I think if I were in his position I might have offered to spend a couple years in the clink in the hopes that society would leave me alone. The life this guy is going to have from here on out is real punishment indeed. (no, I’m not trying to say this in anyway equates to the loss of Trayvon’s life).
I hesitate to walk anymore into the discussion that this. But here goes a bit:
I recognize Zimmerman’s responsibility here. I’m not sure exactly the parameters of it in this particular situation simply because the facts are garbled. (I do agree, Turbulence, that it is a very interesting question whether Zimmerman would have left his car without the gun but where does that really get us?)
You don’t have to go to race to explain this verdict
I agree with this.
He may very well have thought the end was near
I imagine he did.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments here bc. Always a pleasure to hear from you.
bc: So why the concern that normally good, law abiding citizens (as the vast majority of permit holders are) are all of a sudden going to flip out? This case, IMHO, is going to help keep guns in the holster unless actually needed.
The “vast majority” of non-holders of gun permits are “normally good, law abiding citizens” too. I don’t know which majority is vaster, percentage-wise. I make no assumptions either way: maybe “permit holders” as a class are more law-abiding than your average Joe, maybe they’re not.
What I do know is this: as a law-abiding, mild-mannered, wannabe-good citizen who does NOT own a gun, I am just a bit less likely to shoot anybody, in the unforeseeable future, than an equally law-abiding, mild-mannered, wannabe-good citizen who DOES.
Whether shooting somebody is “actually needed” in any particular situation is a slippery question. I have seen nails when I had a hammer in my hand, and also when I didn’t. Somehow, it was always easier to conclude that the nail “needed” pounding in the former case than in the latter.
–TP
” I don’t know which majority is vaster, percentage-wise.”
Oh, permit holders, that’s well established. Concealed carry permit holders are actually more law abiding on average than the police. A lot less likely to shoot the wrong person, too, when they do shoot someone. It’s not even close.
For a week, yes. My guess is he was still a stranger to quite a few people.
Other than him describing that it was suspicious realtime? You think he was making it up as he went, or that he’d planned that explanation in advance? This sounds to me like you believe that Zimmerman had already tried to do harm to Martin, and was plowing the road to make that happen. Which to me, absent evidence to that effect, sounds like pure fantasy. See, I don’t really buy the explanation that Zimmerman so convinced himself that he was seeing the boogeyman that he hallucinated or otherwise imagined strange behavior.
“Right across the street from a shopping area” is a mile walk. But perhaps you’re right. It’s even more of a walk for anyone who might be short-cutting through the neighborhood, though. And it’s not much of a shortcut; it’s all right-angle turns, and you don’t save any time by doing that. But it’s at least possible that there could be foot traffic through the neighborhood. I don’t know that this has been much discussed in the course of the case.
Ok, then. It’s just fine to generalize that because there is a lot of low-level racism, that Zimmerman was therefore motivated by racism? This is what I call a leap. You might not think it’s a leap, but I’m saying this argument doesn’t hold water. I am not saying that Zimmerman isn’t in any way racist, just that your attempt to paint him as racist is seriously lacking in support.
It does? See, I see it this way: Zimmerman suspects that Martin might be one of said assholes, and is trying to get the police involved so that he can find out for sure. But there’s this problem: the police take some time to show up, so his candidate asshole might not be investigated.
Of course, that’s pure fantasy, but not much different kind of fantasy that makes the connection that Zimmerman is stating that Martin absolutely is one of said assholes.
I don’t expect I will get much agreement on these points, which is fine.
You think he was making it up as he went, or that he’d planned that explanation in advance?
I think Zimmerman is a moron. A moron who primed himself into expecting the absolute worst. So he saw suspicious behavior. He saw signs of drug abuse (there was none). He saw reaching into the wasteband to check a non-existent gun. He saw lots of things that weren’t there. If he hadn’t been a moron, he might have noticed that he was acting paranoid, but he just didn’t have the self-awareness for that.
I mean, what kind of idiot tries to lie to a judge about their assets?
This is one of the problems with arming millions of people, and allowing those people to concealed carry. Lots of those people are morons. They have extremely poor judgement. Like the family whose 5 year old shot his little sister with his real loaded rifle because it didn’t occur to the parents that it might be loaded and meh, just leave it lying around the living room. Because these people don’t understand their own limitations, they’re a danger to us all.
For a week, yes. My guess is he was still a stranger to quite a few people.
I don’t know everyone on my *street*, let alone my neighborhood. One of the odd things Ive heard several times is about being suspicious of people in the neighborhood that one doesn’t know to live there. I lived in my last house for over ten years and I certainly wouldn’t’ve expected to recognize *most* people living in my neighborhood. I might have recognized everyone on my block at one time or another. And Im on foot or bike a *lot*.
So the idea that Id see someone walking in the alley and think “this person, I don’t know them so they probably don’t belong here”- I don’t know how people can think this. Unless they live in a small town with a lot of socializing and not much turnover.
Other than him describing that it was suspicious realtime? You think he was making it up as he went, or that he’d planned that explanation in advance? This sounds to me like you believe that Zimmerman had already tried to do harm to Martin, and was plowing the road to make that happen. Which to me, absent evidence to that effect, sounds like pure fantasy. See, I don’t really buy the explanation that Zimmerman so convinced himself that he was seeing the boogeyman that he hallucinated or otherwise imagined strange behavior.
Well, I had just ridiculed the idea that Zimmerman set out to harm Martin (or anyone) that night, so that would seem like a strange position to assume I was taking. otoh, did Zimmerman imagine Martin’s behavior? He certainly imagined several details that were wrong- Martin wasn’t high, and there’s no reason I can imagine for him to reach into his waistband since he wasn’t carrying anything there. So since we know for a friggin fact that Zimmerman was making incorrect observations and drawing wildly incorrect inferences from them (at some distance, at night, and possibly colored by his expectations including some racial bias), yes I think it’s safe to say “Zimmerman was making some incorrect observations”.
Once we admit that to be true, it’s easy to doubt the rest of his observations as well. Thus, I wonder how “strange” Martin’s behavior was, in fact. This seems like a much safer position than assuming that Zimmerman was correct in everything he said that is unverifiable when he has proven to be entirely unreliable on things that were verifiable. Im sure Zimmerman *believed* Martin to be acting strangely, but I wonder what objective facts that was based on.
Because while Zimmerman doesn’t have a motive for making stuff up, he does have a demonstrated tendency to err badly on the side of ‘dangerous, drug-using, armed criminal’. On the other hand- what reason would Martin have had for acting ‘strangely’ or ‘suspiciously’?
“Right across the street from a shopping area” is a mile walk.
walkscore.com showed me the closest services at just under a half-mile, and eyeballing it I think you could shave some of that off walking across parking lots instead of on roads. That’s pretty walkable.
. And it’s not much of a shortcut; it’s all right-angle turns, and you don’t save any time by doing that.
I was thinking of people living/staying there. Quite a few people. Some of whom will be minors, or without a car at the moment, or feeling like a stroll. Point is, walkers seem like they’d be a relatively common occurrence. This walker was known to be a normal kid on a normal mission, yet he seemed like a drugged-up armed criminal to Zimmerman. And I wonder, since we know Martin wasn’t a drugged-up armed criminal, why Zimmmerman didn’t get that ‘vibe’ from the other walkers he presumably saw in the neighborhood from time to time.
Ok, then. It’s just fine to generalize that because there is a lot of low-level racism, that Zimmerman was therefore motivated by racism? This is what I call a leap.
When I number points one, two, and three, and you quote point #3 and say that it’s a leap from just there to the conclusion, I do not know what to say other than to recap what just occurred.
It does? See, I see it this way: Zimmerman suspects that Martin might be one of said assholes, and is trying to get the police involved so that he can find out for sure. But there’s this problem: the police take some time to show up, so his candidate asshole might not be investigated.
Of course, that’s pure fantasy, but not much different kind of fantasy that makes the connection that Zimmerman is stating that Martin absolutely is one of said assholes.
I think we’re fairly close on this point, with one critical exception. It’s *possible* that Zimmerman meant Martin was just possibly in the group. But what he said, unless it’s a non sequitur, put Martin firmly in the group.
Now, it could be shorthand for the more complex idea ‘these thieves always get away and maybe this one of them’. People don’t always say exactly what they mean, so Im fine with leaving some wiggle room on the matter. But I repeat- *nothing* in Zimmerman’s call or actions (including, I think, failing to recognize that even if Martin were innocent he might flee a stranger following him around at night) suggest anything but certainty of guilt. *Maybe* he really felt otherwise and was just excited and angry. But he was definitive about Martin being high, not acting “right”, and suggesting that he was armed. Not “these guys”, but Martin…
These are not equal cases. One of them is supported by the evidence. The other exists because the evidence, such as it is, cannot exclude it. Just as the evidence cannot exclude the idea that Zimmerman intended to kill from the get-go, although I (still) find that a ridiculous theory.
The most likely conclusion IMO is that Zimmerman was relatively sure of Martin’s guilt from early in his observations.
Some people work on their rap lyrics and footwork while walking. From the point of view of an up tight, mostly white guy, that could look a bit odd…
“This is one of the problems with arming millions of people, and allowing those people to concealed carry. Lots of those people are morons.”
I’m sure you enjoy believing that, and I suppose “lots of” them are, in the sense that if you got them all together, they wouldn’t fit in my living room. But it’s kind of hard to square a meaningful interpretation of this claim with the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
Unless maybe you think morons are unusually law abiding…
Some people work on their rap lyrics and footwork while walking.
I’m trying to work out if your tongue is in your cheek, or not.
if you got them all together, they wouldn’t fit in my living room.
Small percentages across large populations = lots of people. And, in any specific case, we’re talking about one person.
Which is to say, Turb’s point aside, we’re not talking about All Concealed Carry Permit Holders, we’re talking about Zimmerman.
Who is a demonstrable hothead.
Again, not trying to crucify the guy, just making observations from the public record and from his own statements and actions.
“Who is a demonstrable hothead.”
I’d love to see somebody demonstrate it, without assuming the case the prosecution brought, and the jury rejected, was true. It appears to me that the “hothead” here was Martin, who assaulted Zimmerman.
it’s kind of hard to square a meaningful interpretation of this claim with the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
The parents of that 5 year old boy who shot his 2 year old sister? No charges have been filed against them. As measured by crime rate statistics, these morons have done nothing wrong. The law and your crime statistics treat them as better than me, because I jaywalked this morning.
Of course the crime rate for gun-toting morons is low: we’ve decided that when negligent morons who shouldn’t be allowed near a weapon end up killing their family members, no crime has been committed. That doesn’t mean those people aren’t dangerous.
Of course, you realize that events such as you describe are so rare that, even were they counted, they’d have no impact on the crime rates at all? They’d vanish in the rounding error.
Cases where a 5 year old shoots his 2 year old sister are indeed rare. But cases where a moron who shouldn’t have a gun shoots someone they shouldn’t are quite common and generally not prosecuted. We just shrug and say ‘it was an accident’, you know, just like when a drunk driver ploughs into a pedestrian, that’s an accident like a tornado and no one is at fault.
I’d love to see somebody demonstrate it
Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest.
Restraining order granted to his previous fiancee.
46 calls to 911 in 8 years.
What the public record says TO ME, is ‘excitable boy’. YMMV.
What ‘appears to be so’ to you is unknown, we do not know what happened in the time between when Martin and Zimmerman came face to face and when the fight began.
You might think you know, but you do not. No-one does but Zimmerman, and his memory may not be reliable, let alone his public statements. He’s not a disinterested witness.
What we do know is that, other than participating in sparring matches with his buddies, Martin had no, zero, zip, nada, zilch record of violent behavior.
A number of people on this board are martial artists, and no doubt participate in sparring matches on a regular basis that achieve or exceed the violence of the stuff in the ‘MARTIN’s VIOLENT PAST REVEALED’ videos that wanna-be truth-tellers have treated us to online.
Those wanna-be truth-tellers including Zimmerman’s attorneys. Bad form.
And, again, he said again, I’m not trying to crucify the guy, just making observations from the public record and Zimmerman’s own statements and actions.
The one and only basis for your claims here, Brett, are Zimmerman’s own statements. Which are not entirely consistent with each other over time, and which are not entirely consistent with the physical evidence.
Brett: …the fact that CCW permit holders have one twentieth the crime rate of the general population.
Leave aside that “CCW permit holders” are only a subset of “responsible gun owners”. Just compare the profile (if you’ll pardon the expression) of CCW permit holders with the profile of “the general population”, which is an even bigger set than gun owners. Crime is a young man’s hobby; obtaining CCW permits probably isn’t. What’s the “crime rate” by age for CCW permit holders versus others?
Whatever it may be, I repeat: Brett is just a bit more likely to shoot somebody during the rest of his life than I am. He and I are both middle-aged white guys. Neither of us has the remotest desire, at the moment, to shoot anybody. But neither of us can honestly say he will NEVER feel that somebody in front of us NEEDS shooting. Brett (says he) owns guns; I (know I) don’t. A moment’s impulse to shoot somebody is easier to overcome when you don’t have a gun handy.
–TP
“Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest.”
The first part was precisely what Martin did.
Yet, the cop at the receiving end of Zimmerman’s punch did not shoot the Z, the f&cking punk and demonstrable thug.
Despite the evidence claimed here that cops are more likely to shoot and kill than concealed carry licensees.
I wonder if the fact that cops are “gummint” and concealed carry licensees are “militia” might be skewing the skew here?
“Arrested for punching a cop and resisting arrest.”
Years ago, undercover cop, but maybe on point. Certainly more in the way of violence than *I’ve* done.
“Restraining order granted to his previous fiancee.”
Restraining order granted against is previous fiancee, too. Got any idea how easy they are to get? You ask for them, you get them.
“46 calls to 911 in 8 years.
Now you’re being silly. He was in the neighborhood watch, calling 911 was part of the job.
Whatever, Brett.
However you want to construe Zimmerman’s record regarding rash behavior, it’s greater than Martin’s. Because Martin doesn’t really have one, in spite of the efforts of an army of online pundits trying to manufacture one.
End of story.
As noted, none of us were there at the moment of the confrontation, so anyone who claims to know exactly how it all went down is talking out of their @ss.
Your claims about what happened are all based on Zimmerman’s testimony. If every single thing he said was true, and was an accurate description of exactly what happened, Zimmerman’s response was understandable.
Even in that event, his behavior leading up to the incident demonstrates poor judgement and is consistent with a demonstrated history of overreaction. But those are not criminal acts. Foolish yes, criminal no.
To the degree his testimony is less than accurate, it’s less clear that his actions were warranted or justifiable.
We’ll never know the truth of the matter. I won’t, and you won’t. If you say you do, you’re talking out of your @ss.
Feel free, however you can expect the rest of us to afford your comments all of the consideration they will deserve.
“Years ago …. ”
So what? Years ago for you might mean 35 years ago; this was eight years ago for the then 20-year old Zimmerman. Martin was 17 and the excuse “years ago” is useless for him.
“Certainly more in the way of violence than *I’ve* done.”
That is one funky statement — “more in the way of violence” is such a delicate, mush-mouthed phrasing for Zimmerman’s assault of a police officer, unlike your descriptions of Treyvon’s alleged violence.
Also, more in the way of violence than Trayvon Martin had done last year, the year before last, and years ago.
“As noted, none of us were there at the moment of the confrontation, so anyone who claims to know exactly how it all went down is talking out of their @ss.”
There’s a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread.
“There’s a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTGnh0rcQsc
I’d love to see somebody demonstrate it, without assuming the case the prosecution brought, and the jury rejected, was true. It appears to me that the “hothead” here was Martin, who assaulted Zimmerman.
You keep repeating that you know who attacked who, although it is not known. When pressed you point out that Zimmerman was getting the worst of the fight and therefore couldn’t have started it. Then you get to learn that the winner does not always start the fight, and that there are plenty of ways to start fights that don’t leave big marks.
Then you lurk for a while, then you start over again. Hopefully Ive saved us all some time on this, and you can either start from this point, or proceed immediately back to lurking.
Also, you’ve had the difference between “innocent” and “not guilty” explained to you before. Try to remember it, especially since fancying yourself an expert on law on the Constitution comes off rather badly when you get basic legal principles wrong repeatedly.
The jury could not find that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin or did not fear for his life, beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean they found him credible- they could even think it *likely* that he committed manslaughter, but just not beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is not complicated. Learning things that one doesn’t like to learn is an important skill, otherwise you spend life in the same loops, failing to learn the same thing over and over.
There’s a whole lot of @ss-talking in this thread.
On the off chance that this is directed my way, allow me to be crystal clear.
I do not know how their confrontation played out, I do not know who initiated the fight or how.
I don’t know, if Martin did in fact throw the first punch, if he did so based on a reasonable sense of being threatened by Zimmerman, or if he just wanted to lay a beating on a rude creepy-@ss cracker.
I don’t know any of those things, so I have no opinion about them.
I have opinions about other things, based on things that are known from the public record, but those are no more than my opinions.
What I seriously doubt is that Zimmerman took any of the actions he took with an intent to kill or in any way harm anyone. I don’t know that for a fact, but I don’t see any intent of that nature anywhere in what is available in the public record.
But in the end, none of us know exactly what happened.
“You keep repeating that you know who attacked who, although it is not known.”
Yes, it’s unknown in a strict sense to anyone but Zimmerman. But Zimmerman wasn’t just getting “the worst” of the fight, there’s no physical evidence that he did anything to Martin AT ALL besides shooting him. An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman’s version of events, it would be rather strange if Zimmerman himself were the aggressor.
But, yes, the matter will always be sufficiently in doubt for people to imagine that poor innocent Martin was the victim, and Zimmerman a ruthless killer.
Also, not for nothing, but:
But, no, “stalking”, AKA following somebody, even if he HAD done that, was not a legal excuse for Martin to assault him.
Maybe so, but apparently stalking ought to have excluded self-defense as a basis for acquittal.
Bolds mine.
FL XLVI title 776.041
FL XLVI title 776.08
Just saying.
An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman’s version of events
As well as about 547 others.
Did Zimmerman verbally threaten Martin?
Did Zimmerman push Martin?
Did Zimmerman swing at Martin and miss?
Did Zimmerman run at Martin or otherwise behave in a threatening manner?
I don’t know. Neither do you. Maybe you should give it a rest.
Yes, it’s unknown in a strict sense to anyone but Zimmerman. But Zimmerman wasn’t just getting “the worst” of the fight, there’s no physical evidence that he did anything to Martin AT ALL besides shooting him. An utterly one-sided set of injuries like that is perfectly consistent with Zimmerman’s version of events, it would be rather strange if Zimmerman himself were the aggressor.
The evidence is consistent with Zimmerman starting the fight (eg by grabbing Martin, trying to stop him from fleeing). It’s consistent with Zimmerman wanting to kill Martin from the get-go. *Consistent* doesn’t mean something happened that way; this situation allows for many consistent stories. Some people admit they don’t know how it went down, others say maybe some events give them hints but they can’t know for sure.
And some folks just know what they want to have happened.
And no, there’s nothing ‘strange’ about scenarios where Zimmerman grabs Martin, tries to tackle him, etc. Those are not only consistent with the physical evidence, but also consistent with the roles of the two people up to that point (Zimmerman pursuing and trying to stop Martin from ‘escaping’, Martin trying to flee). To my mind that makes this more likely, but how much more likely, who knows.
The one thing I am sure of: if you had political motivation for Zimmerman to be the bad guy, all we’d be hearing about is domestic violence, assaulting cops, etc. Some people, like russell, gather up all the evidence and weigh it. Others grab what they want and try to sweep the rest away.
Yes, you can invent scenarios for which there is a complete lack of evidence under which Zimmerman was the bad guy that night. They might even have happened, and there might be a unicorn behind that tree over there.
But, why are you going to, when there’s a simple version of events that happens to be consistent with both the evidence you have, and the lack of the evidence you don’t have? Why prefer the complex scenario to the simple?
Look, I know somebody who’s paranoid, I’ve talked them down from numerous obsessions when their meds got out of wack, and I’m familiar with this kind of thinking, where the conclusion comes first, and when the evidence doesn’t agree with it, instead of accepting that the conclusion was wrong, you start inventing wild scenarios to sustain the conclusion you were committed to pre-evidence.
Fortunately, my paranoid friend is sufficiently well motivated, that while not using reason spontaneously in these situations, they respond to reason when it’s pointed out to them.
What’s your excuse?
“Medicated”, not “motivated”.
Two questions for you, Brett.
1. Do you think everything happened exactly according to Zimmerman’s story because he’s utterly trustworthy, despite his motivation to avoid criminal charges?
2. Do you think Zimmerman did anything at all that was wrong-headed or unnecessary, leading up to the moments before the shooting, that precipitated whatever confrontation took place?
Earlier in this thread, Brett tried to distinguish between a “choirboy” and Trayvon Martin. Given the evidence and the allegations at issue, I have to conclude Brett doesn’t know too many choirboys. Choir boys sing in church. They are not, in Joseph Wambaugh’s memorable phrase, a bunch of eunuchs with their lunch money pinned to their underwear. In my adolescence, as an alter boy in a pretty conservative community, I got up to just about all the stuff that Brett clutches pearls at the thought Trayvon Martin may have done.
So, Brett, here is where I go Colonel Jessup on you. Because the truth is that Trayvon Martin was just an American kid. He could have been anyone’s son. Disowning him, writing him off as a “thug”, consigns him to a large pile of children discarded in the ugly history of “white” supremacy that has blighted both the US and Canada.
And in the place you don’t talk about, the place only your greatest writers ever go, you know you won’t get away with it: that writing off your children always carries a price tag. And I’ll bet you know, deep down, what pasting a label of “thug” on a kid like Trayvon Martin costs you. But just in case you don’t admit it to yourself, I’ll tell you. It costs you your freedom. Because people shivering in fear of their own invented boogey men aren’t free, Brett. They have to have protection from those boogey men. That’s why you pay taxes and burden your kids and grandkids with run away debt to support a grotesque prison-industrial complex. To hide under the covers from the horrid shadow of Trayvon Martin, thug you’ve invented. That’s why your police get more militarized all the time. That’s why you let them get away with sick dominance games. It’s why, when the police take people’s property, break into their houses, terrorize their kids and slaughter their pets, Americans sit still instead of going to the voting booth and throwing out the elected officials responsible. Because any humiliation beats facing the boogey man you created.
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary kid. An ordinary American kid. He could have been anyone’s son. He died because a wannabe in the neighbourhood watch with terminally lousy judgment had a gun. That’s the truth. And your pasting the dehumanizing label of “thug” on him tells me you can’t handle that particular truth.
I think you must have a remarkably low opinion of the average American kid. You do realize that the majority of American kids don’t do drugs, don’t have stolen property found in their lockers, and so forth?
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary example of an American kid going wrong. It’s not a rare thing, or the crime rate in the black community would be a lot lower. But it’s not something we should ignore.
Leaving aside that nobody came close to proving the property in question stolen, I’d bet that virtually all North American kids who don’t grow up in monastaries or (possibly) on Amish farms have things pass through their hands that fell of a truck at some point. I certainly did, and as I’ve said before, I was an actual alter boy. You’re in denial about two things, Brett: the way North American kids (and, let’s face it, adults) actually behave, and your never stated implication that petty vandalism, some anomalous items in a locker, and normal teenage rough-housing would add up to a diagnosis of “thug” if Trayvon Martin had been an upper middle class kid of European background.
While I understand you’re under no obligation (well, maybe not no obligation, if you wish to engage in serious conversation in good faith) to answer any of my questions, I still wonder why you don’t, Brett.
And I wonder why anyone bothers to engage Brett in conversation as if he is arguing in good faith.
So a killer has no burden of proof (propensity of evidence) that his killing someone was justified? The burden of proof is entirely on the state to prove a negative ‘that a killer was not in fear for his life’
IANAL but this attitude twists my mind.
I can give Zimmerman the benefit of some doubt but would a reasonable person have been in fear of for his life? Knowing that the police were on their way and would be there any moment now, short of seeing a gun or knife if I were in Georges shoes that night I would have held off on pulling the trigger. At least the first shot would have been in the air. Nothing that George did that night strikes me as reasonable behavior for an adult.
Trayvon Martin was an ordinary example of an American kid going wrong.
absolute idiocy.
I still wonder why you don’t, Brett.
It’s Brett’s way.
If you disagree with him, it is clear evidence of:
1. stupidity
2. willful blindness, probably due to ideological absolutism
3. bad faith
Or some combination thereof. To all of which we can now apparently add:
4. clinical mental illness.
Brett often has good and insightful things to say, but ‘discussion’ in the sense of a give and take of ideas is not in his repertoire.
Not a stupid mind, but an inflexible one.
What is the basis for concluding that Martin assaulted Zimmerman without cause: Zimmerman said so.
It’s a narrative that is largely consistent with the basic physical evidence. ZImmerman took a beating, Martin did not. A large number of possible narratives, also consistent with those basic facts, but Brett likes Zimmerman’s better.
Zimmerman’s story is not completely consistent with other things we know from the public record. That doesn’t rule out the possibility that his account is 100% truthful and accurate to the best of his ability to recall. Sometimes apparent inconsistencies are explainable. Sometimes people remember things differently than other folks, and/or than how they actually happened.
But neither would it lead the thoughtful person to accept his account without question.
Unless you’re Brett.
The burden of proof is entirely on the state to prove a negative ‘that a killer was not in fear for his life’
If my understanding of the Florida law is correct, the answer to this is yes.
No, the burden on the state is to prove a negative, that a killer was not reasonably in fear of their life. Being phobic isn’t a license to kill, you have to have been in a situation where a reasonable person would fear for their life.
You know, like trapped on your back, getting the crap beaten out of you?
A law professor makes – yet again – an important point that Brett continues to ignore. (The full article, linked, provides more legal detail.)
“The jury apparently began its deliberations at the point Martin hit Zimmerman. But, by ignoring all that happened up to that point, the jury failed to consider whether Martin’s blow was defensive and thus legal.
That was a threshold issue to be decided.”
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/20/3041859/ignoring-race-a-mistake.html#storylink=cpy
And allow me to be crystal clear in return: it was not directed in your way, or even in your general direction.
In this as well as in nearly all other things that we have discussed, I find you to be as evenhanded (which is not to say that you don’t have an opinion, nor to say that you are unemotional) as I could ever hope to be myself.
Count, that talking-glove video is the funniest thing I have seen in days. Which may just mean that I need to get out more, but: thanks!
“The jury apparently began its deliberations at the point Martin hit Zimmerman. But, by ignoring all that happened up to that point, the jury failed to consider whether Martin’s blow was defensive and thus legal.
That was a threshold issue to be decided.”
The problem here is that we had actual, objective evidence of the blows and the gunshot. We had no evidence at all that Zimmerman did squat prior to Martin’s punch that would have made the punch legally justified self defense.
So if they’d started out with that threshold question, it would have been a damned short examination.
Anyone who questions the validity of the questions about the rightness of the jury’s decision and the appropriateness of the prosecution’s decisions has a perfect right to do so. We can believe the prosecutors did their best with the law they had, and that the jury made an inevitable or at least defensible decision, and still demand a review of the law. Whatever anyone’s view of the jury’s choices, it still makes sense to conclude that defects in the law in Florida set George Zimmerman on a fatal collision course with Trayvon Martin.
Just curious, Brett – did you actually read the article I linked to?
From end to end. Speculation based on racism which has only been imputed to Zimmerman, not demonstrated. The idea that Zimmerman somehow acted in a way as to make Martin’s assault fall into the category of self defense is the unicorn behind the tree: It could be there, but no actual evidence supports the idea.
From end to end. Speculation based on racism which has only been imputed to Zimmerman, not demonstrated.
That is correct, and is a fair point.
I am absolutely among those who believe that Zimmerman responded differently to Martin because he was black.
I’m sure the fact that there had been burglaries allegedly by young black men was a factor. That’s a reasonable cause to notice and possibly report to police a young black man, walking through your neighborhood, that you don’t recognize.
Zimmerman goes beyond this.
‘He’s up to no good’
‘He’s on drugs or something’
‘He’s got his hand in his waistband’
‘Something’s wrong with him’
‘He’s got something in his hand’
This is not ‘I don’t know this guy, he might be one of the folks who have done burglaries, maybe the cops should check him out’.
This is an assumption of wrong-doing that is insupportable based on what we know of what Martin was actually doing. Which was (a) walking and (b) looking at houses.
There are a number of unicorns behind the tree in this incident; among them is the idea that Martin was doing anything whatsoever that should have been seen as suspicious.
It could be there, but no actual evidence supports it.
Zimmerman’s reaction to Martin was well beyond ‘I don’t know this guy’.
There is also the discrepancy between Zimmerman’s account of the face-to-face encounter with Martin, and Rachel Jeantel’s.
Jeantel:
“why are you following me?”
“what are you doing around here?”
Zimmerman:
“What the f***s your problem, homie?”
“Hey man, I don’t have a problem?”
“You do now”
What’s with the ‘ghetto’ talk in Zimmerman’s account?
What I take away from all of this is a fairly dramatic overreaction on the part of Zimmerman, and one colored by Martin’s race.
Just my opinion.
I would also point out that ‘just my opinion’ is supported by the nearly universal experience of black people, and young black men especially, of being targets of unjustified, unprovoked suspicion, on a consistent and frequent basis. It’s just a reality they live with, and it sucks.
I would also point out that assuming, as Zimmerman apparently did, that ANY young black man in his neighborhood who he did not recognize was likely one of the alleged burglars is, inherently, racist.
It is a prejudice based on race.
It is an exact analogue to:
That guy looks Hispanic, and I don’t know him, so he must be an illegal immigrant.
That guy looks like some kind of poor white trash, so he must be cooking up meth in a trailer somewhere.
Etc etc etc.
Way way upthread I called Zimmerman a racist, which is likely unfair. ‘Racist’ implies a kind of settled animus, based purely on skin color, that I don’t see in Zimmerman.
What I do see in Zimmerman is ‘young black boy, he must be just like all of the young black boys who do X Y or Z’.
And that kind of leap is something that is EXTRAORDINARILY common when the subject under discussion is young black boys, to a degree much greater than for young boys of other skin tones.
And that leap is racist.
So yes, racism is not explicitly demonstrated in the public record. There is just a lot of stuff here that quacks like a duck, all of which causes me to hold the OPINION that, where Martin not black, he’d be alive today.
YMMV.
“What the f***s your problem, homie?”
“Hey man, I don’t have a problem?”
“You do now”
What’s with the ‘ghetto’ talk in Zimmerman’s account?”
This question is actually funny when you take into account all of Jeantrls testimony, which included her share (crazy%&$ cracker?) what you refer to as “ghetto” talk. The term itself is pretty racist. So perhaps its your racism tainting this discussion?
Seriously, Marty?
So perhaps its your racism tainting this discussion?
It was ‘creepy-@ss cracker’, not ‘crazy-@ss cracker’, and I agree that it’s a racist comment.
Black people are also capable of racism. To assume otherwise would be, well, racist.
Sucks when it’s directed at people like you, though, doesn’t it?
in FL, “cracker” historically has a different meaning than it does elsewhere.
i don’t know if Martin knew that.
from cleek’s link:
It would certainly harsh some mellows if Trayvon had been overheard addressing Zimmerman thusly just before the confrontation:
“”What cracker is this … that deafes our ears / With this abundance of superfluous breath?”
One reason the verdict is so deveastating is that Trayvon was ordinary.
The efforts to smear him…
The thing is if you take an ordinary kid, shoot him, and then smear him, then that makes every other kid vulernerable.
And people who recognize the ordinariness of Trayvon understand that.
I suppose on one level the desire to make Zimmerman into a victim of a Willie-Hortonized Trayvon is a desire for people to protect themselves from the fear that something like this could happen to them or to their sons.
The ‘creepy’ part of the ‘cracker’ talk was as it seems spot-on.
And some people seem not be used to the fact that youngsters of all shapes tend to use offensive language among themselves when referring to adults. The use of words frowned upon is part of the game (also the use of positive words as insults and negative ones as praise).
Yes, you can invent scenarios for which there is a complete lack of evidence under which Zimmerman was the bad guy that night. They might even have happened, and there might be a unicorn behind that tree over there.
Well, there’s evidence that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin and Martin was- after realizing he was being pursued by a strange adult at night- fleeing. There is no evidence that Zimmerman *stopped* pursuing Martin or that Martin became the aggressor. By your logic I should definitely say that Zimmerman started the fight. But Im open to the possibility that, since the evidence is so limited about who started it, we should prefer to admit our ignorance.
There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. There is no physical evidence that Martin started the fight. Who started the fight is a complete unknown (except to Zimmerman). You obviously prefer one scenario to the other, to the point of saying that if your preferred scenario isn’t excluded by the evidence we must accept it, or accept that it might have been unicorns.
But, why are you going to, when there’s a simple version of events that happens to be consistent with both the evidence you have, and the lack of the evidence you don’t have? Why prefer the complex scenario to the simple?
Occam’s Razor, you do not know how to wield it. There is nothing ‘more complex’ about either of these scenarios:
1)Zimmerman caught up with Martin and grabbed him to stop him from running away
2)Zimmerman caught up with Martin, who was spooked by the pursuit and punched Zimmerman
Unicorns, now, that would be more complex. A third party who actually shot Martin that Zimmerman was trying to cover for, that would be more complex.
If you imagine the one where the black guy isn’t the aggressor is somehow more ‘complex’; let’s just say that if you’re going to practice psychotherapy without a license you might want to chase down the imaginary klansman whispering in your ear. “A black kid who isn’t violent at the drop of a hat? Might as well imagine unicorns!”
I’m familiar with this kind of thinking, where the conclusion comes first, and when the evidence doesn’t agree with it
Yes, I imagine that you are quite familiar with that kind of thinking. As a matter of fact, I hear you’re up for an award.
I think that (to the limitied extent that it possible to understand another person’s mind) both Trayvon and Zimmerman reacted to each other at least partly based on racial stereotypes.
However, Trayvon wasn’t actually doing anything wrong. Zimmerman was stalking and pursuing which, given the comments from 911 and given that he had no basis for following Trayvon other than a racial sereoptype, was wrong.
The “creepy” part of Trayvon’s attitude toward Zimmerman was accurate.
In other words, if their interaction had consisted of Zimmerman simply driving by, the two parties might have thought of each other in terms of racial stereotypes but there would have been no incident.
But Zimmerman acted on his racial stereotype.
There’s also a tremendous amount of history lurking behind this incident, a history of racially motivated killings of black men by white men. It’s blinkered to pretend that away. I don’t think it is any harder to see why an unarmed black teenager would be afraid of a stranger who accosts him than for a woman alone to be nervous about a man who approaches her.
And it is logical for a person who is running away to run between houses. Makes a lot more sense than to run down the street.
It also makes sense to turn and fight the pursuer if the pursuer gets too close.
That’s what i would do, if some guy was chasing me.
Actually I’d run up to a house and bang on the door, but I’m a white woman. A black teenager would not be able to assume, as I can, that the people inside would provide refuge.
Zimmerman should have been trying to defuse the situation. That should have been part of his security guard training. Instead it looks to me like his racial profling attitude, plus his I-need-a-gun-to-feel-like-a-man attiude and his propensity for pickig fights he can’t win all led him to keep pursuing when he didn’t need to pursue at all. He went way past anything that could be considered necessary for his job.
So I think that both had some negative attitudes about race, but Trayvon’s was behavior in this incident was defensive and Zimmerman’s was hostile and aggressive.
And it all happened within a context of a culture where historical race relationships are still being played out.
“The thing is if you take an ordinary kid, shoot him, and then smear him, then that makes every other kid vulernerable.”
The thing is, ordinary kids generally don’t get shot after administering a beating to somebody, because ordinary kids don’t generally administer beatings to somebody. So the claim that Martin was an “ordinary” kid is somewhat tendentious.
As for the “smear”, if the effort to railroad Zimmerman hadn’t involved trying to turn Martin into some kind of saint, in order to render his attack on Zimmerman implausible, there’d be no need to say one word against the dead.
So, can we stop smearing ordinary kids by making Martin out to be one?
“There is no evidence that Zimmerman *stopped* pursuing Martin or that Martin became the aggressor.”
Yeah, actually there is, because of the location of the attack relative to Zimmerman’s car, and the fact that, aside from damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound, Martin was uninjured. You have to posit that Zimmerman was following Martin extremely slowly, and then assaulted him in a manner which left no marks. Pulled a gun on him, but didn’t get a shot off until *after* being beat up?
And, no, I’m not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Yeah, actually there is, because of the location of the attack relative to Zimmerman’s car, and the fact that, aside from damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound, Martin was uninjured. You have to posit that Zimmerman was following Martin extremely slowly, and then assaulted him in a manner which left no marks. Pulled a gun on him, but didn’t get a shot off until *after* being beat up?
So many wrong things.
I don’t know what about the location relative to Zimmerman’s car tells you who attacked who. The only thing it tells me that Zimmerman was not looking for a street sign in an alley. But heck, Ill bite: where would be body have to be for it to indicate Zimmerman attempted to grab Martin to prevent him from fleeing?
You’ve been told many, many times that Zimmerman could’ve initiated violence without leaving a mark on either. For example, Zimmerman attempts to grab Martin to prevent him from fleeing before the police arrive. You ignore this, over and over, as if ignoring it would make it go away. We know the fight started. We have no evidence as to who started it.
If Martin had run full speed away from Zimmerman this wouldn’t have happened. Maybe he tried to hide. Maybe he was worried about leading the seemingly crazy guy to his home and his family. I don’t see why I have to posit that Zimmerman was moving slowly though.
And last, a serving of tasty straw- I don’t see any reason to think that Zimmerman pulled his gun before the fight started. You just keep fabricating reasons to not think clearly about this.
And, no, I’m not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Following people slowly in a car and then pursuing them on foot when they attempt to flee is also a criminal behavior pattern. It’s perfectly reasonable for Martin to perceive a threat from this behavior.
I know, you’ve already said that you’ve advised your teenaged relatives to be polite and meek when followed by strange men into alleys, even if they then reach into their jackets for something or try to physically restrain them. Because they might be Neighborhood Watch, of course.
So, can we stop smearing ordinary kids by making Martin out to be one?
Im mean geez people, just look at him ferchrisake.
I’m not going to buy the idea that acting like a member of the neighborhood watch is justification for beating on somebody.
Zimmerman did not act like a member of the neighborhood watch. Had he done so, he wouldn’t have acquired a broken nose, Martin would be alive, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
He did not act like a member of neighborhood watch.
He was armed.
He followed Martin on foot.
Not neighborhood watch policy.
The National Sheriff’s Association, sponsor of the neighborhood watch program, has been publicly and explicitly critical of Zimmerman’s actions.
From their statement, issued shortly after Martin’s death:
The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighorhood Watch Program stands for. Says the national organization behind the neighborhood watch program.
Not my words. If you wish to argue the point, take it up with the National Sheriffs Association.
You’ve been told many, many times…
it’s time for the rest of us to learn the lesson: Brett’s story is immutable. he is not interested in having it modified by anything anyone else has to say.
More from Chris Tutko, Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriff’s Association:
And:
And:
Not my words, take it up with the National Sheriff’s Association.
it’s time for the rest of us to learn the lesson: Brett’s story is immutable.
That’s true, but his willingness to say the same wrong things over and over and over provides an opportunity to challenge the BS.
It may be too late for Brett, but perhaps other minds may be saved.
I don’t disagree with any of the stuff from Neighborhood Watch except where they get the facts wrong:
40 calls over several (>5)years would not be an issue.
He should not have left the car.
On the other hand, he didn’t leave the car until Trayvon started to run.
Still should have stayed in the car.
Simple stuff, no complex motivations, no smearing of character.
Zimmerman shouldn’t have left the car, he wouldn’t have if Trayvon hadn’t run.
This stupid misstatement of something I said, not Brett:
If Trayvon knew there was Neighborhood Watch, and reacted by going home on the main street, he would be alive and someone could have complained about Zimmerman.
And, despite russells worry that the bad guy would then know where you live, I want my kid to go straight home in any circumstance like this. Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer? Really?
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
Not a bad idea, but his failure to do this says nothing about whether or not Zimmerman needed to shoot him to prevent serious harm, nor whether or not Zimmerman did anything stupid or unnecessary leading to whatever confrontation took place.
(Keep in mind Zimmeran was the one on trial for shooting someone, because he shot someone – as opposed to Martin being on trial for failing not to be shot.)
Zimmerman shouldn’t have left the car, he wouldn’t have if Trayvon hadn’t run.
I don’t know what Zimmerman would’ve done if Martin had walked into the alley behind the houses instead of running. Given his stated desire that Martin not get away, it’s entirely possible that he would’ve followed on foot anyway.
But it’s not known.
And, despite russells worry that the bad guy would then know where you live, I want my kid to go straight home in any circumstance like this. Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer? Really?
Finally, not discussed anywhere here, I hope my kid would have hung up from his friend and called 911. He had a phone and plenty of time to call. Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.
There’s a whole world of things that might have been different, but none of the things Martin did were unreasonable. I think it’s important not to assign blame to Martin just because he didn’t do the optimal thing at each step. That is not, IMO, equivalent to doing something wrong or unreasonable.
While Zimmerman did some unreasonable things (eg getting out of the car, not announcing that he was part of the Neighborhood Watch at the first opportunity), probably the most unreasonable thing he did was to apparently never consider the possibility that Martin wasn’t guilty. Everything in Zimmerman’s words and actions indicates that he saw Martin’s actions through that lens.
“There’s a whole world of things that might have been different, but none of the things Martin did were unreasonable.”
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
I’ll be glad to concede that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. It is often imprudent to do things we are legally entitled to do without being assaulted. But just as to tell a mugging victim they shouldn’t have wandered into a dark alley is not to excuse the mugger, to say that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car is not to excuse Martin.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman did anything which would have constituted legal provocation rendering Martin’s blows anything but assault and battery. The supposition that he did provoke the blows seems to be based on a combination of setting a disturbingly low threshold for attacking somebody, and accusing Zimmerman of being a racist. For which, let me note, there isn’t actually any evidence.
But, yes, it would have been prudent of him to stay in the car.
“Perhaps the 911 operators could have avoided the whole incident if he had.”
They already had their hands full with Zimmerman not following suggested protocol.
Maybe the 911 operator could have given Martin’s and Zimmerman’s cell phone numbers to each other and they might have hashed it out between themselves at a distance.
Maybe, maybe.
Maybes are better handled with conversation first, then fists if needed, but deadly weapons should be left to the professionals outside one’s property, the latter of which is a concession to the impossibility of guns ever being confiscated in this country, though IMO the big stuff should be taken by this Friday and the manufacturers shut down.
Somewhere, it was reported that Zimmerman told police he had forgotten he was carrying his concealed and loaded weapon that evening as the incident unfolded.
This ties in with a remark MckT made way upthread that he is pretty sure Zimmerman was not expecting gun play (again with the funky terms — shooting spree, gun play ….
what’s next …..bullet foreplay?) that evening either.
Taking MckT’s comment first, I reject that conclusion. Why go to the trouble of applying for a concealed weapons permit, let alone owning a weapon, let alone strapping the holstered gun on, if you aren’t expecting something?
I’m always amazed at how many concealed weapons carriers testify on the internet and other places that they pack at all times, even breaking the law in some jurisdictions, because they are alert to all possibilities and provocations of assault even if they have not had any prior experience with being assaulted themselves.
They read the papers. Their cousin had a buddy whose brother had a neighbor who got mugged.
Unless Zimmerman was planning on palpating the melons at the grocery store with his plaything, I expect he was alert to and expecting trouble at all times.
Now, to Zimmerman’s alleged claim to have forgotten he was carrying his weapon: bullshit.
He’s saying he did not know where his gun was. First, that’s incompetent. This gun he filled out reams of paperwork to carry, this gun he, I’m convinced, stood in front of the mirror with and practiced his quick draw, probably even looking himself in the eye and asking “You talking to me?” like Travis Bickle, though I expect it might have looked more like Barney Fife spinning and drawing and maybe getting the thing hung up on his belt or some other article of clothing (come to think of it, gun play is an accurate term because he may have watched too many Dirty Harry movies and westerns in which guns are “played” with, this gun he strapped on that day because he fancied himself as and looked forward to being employed in law enforcement, and because he was a player alert to trouble or its facsimile thereof.
The weapon was not a pair of glasses that a person might forget they are momentarily wearing on top of their head — and if it is then he shouldn’t be carrying a weapon.
I wear glasses because I am expecting to see; I’m wearing a watch because I expect to tell time; I’m carrying my wallet because I expect to use its contents; I’m wearing my machete in a harness over my shoulder because I’m expecting to have to hack my way through the high weeds of bullshit every day, among other things; I’m wearing my keys because I expect to lock and unlock; I’m wearing my pants because otherwise people could spot my concealed weapon dangling down my butt crack, etc.
I may forget I am carrying any one of these things, but I didn’t have to get a f*cking license to carry any of them, and none of them, with the exception of the machete, are loaded and deadly, though I expect some may conclude that my keys could be used to gouge …. so shoot me.
I’d ask Brett, MckT, bc, Slart and others of us who own weapons for a reason and/or who carry weapons if they have ever forgotten where those weapons are. It sounds to me that all of us are fully alert and aware about where our weapons are at any time, else why own them unless it’s the family musket at the bottom of a trunk in the basement, and if we can’t remember where the weapons are, especially if they are strapped to our butts, then you’re all fired and I’m hiring new bodyguards.
I’d like to know too how Zimmerman managed to untangle his weapon from his clothing while he was flst on his back and it was raining punches outside.
Not that it matters, but I could see the weapon having been drawn just prior to the fight, and in fact being a reason for Trayvon Martin to panic and attack, maybe believing that the only option.
“Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you happy to see me.”
“Frankly, m’am, I’ve lost track of both. Now, lemme see, (patting himself down) the last I saw my weapon was just before I left the house, I put it into my holster and then .. D’oh … and as for my gun, the last time I carried that was on my honeymoon back in ’48, but it always shot blanks anyways. I’m sorry, now, little lady, what was your question?”
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
Yes, predictably you swallowed a roofie since our most recent interchange, and once again forgot that there’s no evidence indicating who attacked whom.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman did anything which would have constituted legal provocation rendering Martin’s blows anything but assault and battery.
We have a total lack of evidence that Zimmerman was assaulted without such a provocation. We have a lack of evidence about who started the fight, period. You keep acting like this is more or less definitive proof that Martin started the fight.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is doubly true when we would not expect some of the events in question to leave evidence. Thus, that there is no evidence that Zimmerman attempted to restrain Martin is exactly what we would expect if it were true and if it were false.
Once more, two scenarios:
1)Zimmerman grabbed Martin, Martin punched Zimmerman
2)Zimmerman followed Martin into the alley, Martin punched Zimmerman
Those are both completely consistent with the evidence. They are both consistent with the actions of the two individuals up to that point. They are both entirely plausible. Neither violates Occam’s Razor by introducing new agents or complexities.
You like one of them so much that you repeatedly state it as a fact.
I’ll be glad to concede that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car.
In comment #83,975…
“Yes, predictably you swallowed a roofie since our most recent interchange, and once again forgot that there’s no evidence indicating who attacked whom.”
Predictably, you’re still spinning scenarios with no evidence to support the, in a desperate effort to make the acquitted guy guilty.
Anyway, looks like Zimmerman hasn’t learned his lesson, he’s still a busybody, sticking his nose where it’s not wanted. When WILL he learn to mind his own business?
Zimmerman shouldn’t have left the car, he wouldn’t have if Trayvon hadn’t run.
This is called ‘blaming the victim’.
Zimmerman shouldn’t have left the car is a complete and sufficient statement. Leave it there.
Except for the little matter of assaulting Zimmerman.
The word you are searching for here, Brett, is ‘battery’, not assault. Physical contact was made, so it is battery.
From Florida state law:
Whether Martin’s action amounted to battery, or a justifiable use of force, depends on what occurred when they encountered each other face to face.
I don’t know what happened. Neither do you.
I say this not because it will not prevent you from parroting the same sorry BS another 1,734 times, but neither of us, nor anyone else on the planet save Zimmerman, has any basis for calling Martin’s actions lawful and correct, or lawful but stupid, or not lawful.
No one but Zimmerman.
And Zimmerman is neither a reliable nor a disinterested witness.
“Neither violates Occam’s Razor by introducing new agents or complexities.”
No, actually scenario 1 introduces Zimmerman grabbing Martin, in case you somehow overlooked this. Then we could hypothesize that this was in response to Martin spitting in Zimmerman’s face. Which was in response to Zimmerman calling him a dirty name. Which was in response to Martin impuning Zimmerman’s mom. Yeah, you can keep ADDING things for which there’s no evidence, layer on layer. Or you can stick with what there IS evidence for:
Martin striking Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot Martin.
I’m going to try this one again:
Is it not possible that Martin could have acted criminally without completely absolving Zimmerman of any moral responsibility for shooting Martin?
Or should Zimmerman have stayed in his car just to avoid the hassle that resulted from his killing Martin, rather than to avoid shooting Martin, even if with legal justification?
starting the story in the middle, again. what a fucking joke.
i for one have had more than enough of this.
“Neither violates Occam’s Razor by introducing new agents or complexities.”
No, actually scenario 1 introduces Zimmerman grabbing Martin, in case you somehow overlooked this.
That is not a new agent or complexity. It is a new event in the sequence of events.
You would exclude from reasonable consideration all events that do not leave a physical trace. That is bluntly illogical, and you only embrace this deranged logic because it serves your purposes at the moment.
For example, you imagine some words could’ve been exchanged. Given human beings, it seems likely to me that words were exchanged. We can’t know this for certain since there was no recording. Would you have us conclude then that it’s vastly more likely that no words were exchanged, since there’s no physical evidence that they were?
Or would you reasonably observe that we can’t know if words were exchanged, or what they were- that it’s entirely possible or even likely, but unknowable?
I ask what you would ‘reasonably do’ as if that were an option- sometimes I make myself laugh. What I meant to write is “you will mechanistically assume whatever is necessary to make Martin the bad actor in all of this”.
“That is not a new agent or complexity. It is a new event in the sequence of events.”
No, that’s precisely what it is: A violation of Occam’s razor.
“You would exclude from reasonable consideration all events that do not leave a physical trace.”
Yes, that’s right: Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty, I refuse to invent things I have no evidence for in order to rationalize that guilt.
Would you advise him to run randomly around the development until he lost the pursuer?
For the record, where Martin ran was down a paved sidewalk, then down another paved walkway between two rows of houses.
His father’s house was at the end of that row.
So, off the main street where he was still visible to Zimmerman, then towards his father’s house.
The goal of ‘losing Zimmerman’ is one that is hard to find fault with, given the situation. To me, anyway.
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa…
Yes, that’s right: Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty, I refuse to invent things I have no evidence for in order to rationalize that guilt.
Yes I know you want to go right to the psychology of it, but you didn’t actual respond to the point. If something didn’t leave a physical trace, even something that you wouldn’t normally expect to leave a physical trace, do you always rule it out when considering scenarios?
You will find that, in other scenarios, this is quite a silly rule to use.
No, that’s precisely what it is: A violation of Occam’s razor.
You (for whatever sick reason) watch me go into a public restroom. After a few minutes I come back out.
Does Occam’s Razor tell you that I didn’t use the facilities? Because that’s what you’re arguing: if you don’t have evidence of something- even if you wouldn’t expect to have evidence of it- then you say OR tells us it didn’t occur.
You are so wrong it’s funny. OR doesn’t say “assume that only the things that produce evidence are true”. OR means we should tentatively rule out that Zimmerman killed Martin over a gambling debt, or that it was an elaborately staged suicide by Martin. Because those involve introducing entirely new factors into the scenario.
“Zimmerman tried to grab Martin” isn’t a new factor, it’s entirely congruent with Zimmerman’s existing motives.
Not being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty
nb you appear to be the only person here with a dogmatic position on who is guilty, the only person selling one possible scenario as a fact.
I’d agree that there is a disturbingly low threshold at work here, but it’s not the one you’re alluding to, Brett. By Florida law (specifically, 784.03 of the Florida Statutes), all Mr. Zimmerman would have needed to do to commit battery upon the person of Mr. Martin would be to grab him or otherwise touch him without his consent. If he did that prior to Mr. Martin throwing a punch, and if Mr. Martin had seen or been told by Mr. Zimmerman that he was armed, Mr. Martin could justifiably stand his ground and (if physically capable) beat Mr. Zimmerman to a pulp, or even to death. I wouldn’t call such a hypothetical course of action anything resembling a wise one, but I wouldn’t call what Mr. Zimmerman admits to having done wise either. Nor would I consider the Florida Statutes wise for allowing either scenerio to unfold within the protection of the law.
being driven by a determination that Zimmerman MUST be guilty
Guilty of what?
What is anyone here claiming Zimmerman is ‘guilty’ of?
I’ve probably been the most critical of Zimmerman, and the strongest thing I’ve said about him is that he’s an @sshole, and that his suspicion of Martin was likely influenced by the fact that Martin was black.
Marty appears to resent my calling him a bad name, so for ‘@sshole’ please substitute ‘is prone to rash behavior’ if that suits your sensibilities better.
And for evidence of ‘rash behavior’, you can start with ‘left the car’.
My argument with you is your insistence that (a) Martin was a ‘thug’ and (b) that he therefore had to have been the aggressor in their fight.
He was certainly winning, so Zimmerman’s wounds were much worse than Martin’s. We – including you – have no idea who started the fight.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Kindly read the previous sentence a couple of hundred times and see if it sinks in.
“We – including you – have no idea who started the fight.”
We don’t have absolute proof, but the comparative injuries most assuredly constitutes evidence.
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now? What’s the matter, can’t fit it into the narrative?
Just saw the news myself.
Glad Zimmerman helped out. I hope he lives a long, charitable, giving life. He should join a nunnery.
Now, how does this change the narrative about the dead guy?
Do you mean to say that this is the first time in the history of narratives that a fellow caught up in a questionable circumstance has done something decent a short while later?
Who knows (let me guess: you do. In which case, tell us) what Trayvon might have been up to this week?
Or does Martin’s bogus criminal history extend into the afterlife?
Comparing injuries won’t tell you anything about who started it. It just tells you who was winning.
I tried to follow the link, but it didn’t work.
We don’t have absolute proof, but the comparative injuries most assuredly constitutes evidence.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now?
Good job, George.
“The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.”
No, that’s true, if by “mean”, you intend certainly. You are aware that people must routinely reason in the absence of perfect information, aren’t you?
So, you’ve got one guy with a broken nose, two black eyes, contusions, and a gun with one shot fired.
You’ve got the other guy with scuffed up knuckles, and a fatal gun shot wound.
Oh, and the first guy was expecting the cops to show up at any second.
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
Yeah, I think you can reason in the absence of perfect information. I think you just don’t want to.
Given that the guy who was expecting the cops had been told he didn’t have to follow but did, and given that he had in the past exceed the limits of his job (based on professional opinion as given upthread) and given that the guy had resorted to unnecesary or unwise violence in the past as evidenced by his police record, I don’t think the fact that he was losing the fight is evidence that he didn’t start it.
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
What’s the line?
No, that’s true, if by “mean”, you intend certainly.
By ‘mean’ I mean ‘prove’, ‘demonstrate’, ‘imply’, or any other construction that results in ‘leads to the conclusion that’.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not, in the absence of other information, lead us to the conclusion that Martin started the fight.
Trust me when I say that lots of folks start fights that they lose, often quite dramatically.
the first guy was expecting the cops to show up at any second.
And yet, he left the car.
My point? Zimmerman was demonstrably capable of rash action, even given the fact that the cops were on the way, and he knew they were on the way.
how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
I wouldn’t bet, because there isn’t enough information available to draw a conclusion, and I’m not an idiot.
It’s my mother’s side of the family who love to gamble, I take after my old man’s Scot-Irish dirt farmer clan as regards games of chance.
I think you just don’t want to.
Without meaning in any way to boast or make any kind of point of it, I feel comfortable saying that in this thread I’ve amply demonstrated a willingness to entertain as many possible scenarios as will fit into my head.
Which is many more than one.
And which includes the possibility that Martin was freaked out or simply annoyed by Zimmerman and decided to punch out his lights for the hell of it.
Entirely possible. Could have happened that way. We don’t know.
You weren’t there, I wasn’t there. We don’t know how the fight started.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Further, had Martin thrown the first punch, that does not mean that his action was legally battery.
It all depends on what happened before the first punch was thrown.
There is one person alive who was there, and I’m not taking his word for it.
You don’t know, I don’t know. If you want to lay a bet, have at it, I’m not interested.
But that’s all it is, a bet. A guess, a wager, a gamble. And there’s no pot to win, so I hardly see the point in it.
Leaving games of chance and flights of conjecture aside, if anyone but Brett and I are still reading this weary, sorry-@ss thread, I’ll offer a story.
My wife and I have a good friend, a woman who grew up in our town. She’s white, her husband is Senagalese, and is very very black.
She has a son who’s 12 or 13 now. He’s not as dark as his dad, but by any standard prevailing in the US of A, he’s a black boy. Wide nose, dark skin, kinky hair.
Black boy.
She is now trying to sort out how to explain to her son that, for the forseeable future, certainly until he is well well well into adulthood and possibly middle age, he will have to go out of his way to make plain to any and everyone near him, whether he knows them or not, that he is not doing anything he shouldn’t be doing.
All the time, everywhere he goes.
I hang out sometime at a little kind of Boy’s Town place near where I live. It’s a group home for kids who come from really, really f***ed up home situations. The DHS sends them to this place where there’s no place else for them to go. I haven’t been in a while, but when I have time I go down and play drums with the kids. It’s fun for me and for them.
Many of these kids are black or some kind of shade of brown, and they all get the same pep talk.
You have no wiggle room – none, zero, no wiggle room. And you won’t be getting a lot of second chances, if any.
NO WIGGLE ROOM.
Someone was talking about this same issue on the radio today. The kind of crap she will need to inculcate into her son includes:
never run in public unless it’s absolutely crucial to do so
keep you hands out of your pockets if you’re in any kind of store
never, ever, ever give anyone any kind of smart answer, about anything, ever
All good advice for any kind, I guess, but the downside for kids who are not black does not include ‘or you might get arrested’ or ‘or you might get shot’.
The kid’s 12 or 13, and he’s looking at spending the next 20 years of his life MANAGING EVERYBODY ELSE’S ISSUE about black skin.
So that he doesn’t end up beat up, or in jail, or shot.
Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about this being like a tax levied on all black people, everywhere, paid to ease the discomfort of white folks when they are required to come into contact with blacks.
I think he’s correct.
Everybody wants to say this incident has nothing to do with race. I call bullshit.
I have no particular argument with the acquittal on murder 2 and manslaughter. I think that its sucks that there isn’t some other legal structure to hold Zimmerman accountable for the responsibility he owns for Martin’s death. But, so be it.
But if you are trying to tell me that race has nothing to do with this incident, you have a very hard sell. Not that you likely give a crap either way, but you have a very hard sell ahead of you.
Zimmerman doesn’t have to be a freaking Klansman for the color of Martin’s skin to be a factor here. He just has to be an average resident of the US.
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa…
No, that’s true, if by “mean”, you intend certainly. You are aware that people must routinely reason in the absence of perfect information, aren’t you?
It means, there is no physical evidence as to who started the fight. Not a whit. Not a thimbleful. Not a wisp.
That Martin hit Zimmerman tells us nothing, except that Martin hit Zimmerman. It doesn’t make us 99% sure that Martin started the fight, or 90% sure that Martin started the fight, or 75% sure that Martin started the fight.
We start with a virtually infinite number of scenarios. We exclude those that don’t fit the physical evidence (eg ones where Martin doesn’t hit Zimmerman). We exclude the ones with unnecessary complexity (eg where Zimmerman killed Martin over a love triangle). We’re left with a bunch of possibilities.
From those, we get to exercise our judgments aka best guesses, based on motives etc. Scenarios where either starts the fight make it into this final basket. I dont see any reason to have a very strong preference for either other than initial bias.
If the coroner had suddenly found a piece of evidence that Zimmmerman had hit Martin at some point, my picture basically doesn’t change- we knew they were in a fight, so duh, people hit each other in fights. It wouldn’t make Zimmerman look any more guilty or less innocent IMO.
Who started the fight? Honestly, how would you bet if your own money was on the line?
Id be willing to go, I dunno, 3 or 4 to 1 that Zimmerman started it by trying to stop Martin from getting away. Martin *might* have lashed out, but nothing we know about him suggests that this was likely- last we knew, he was fleeing, and there’s nothing in his history to indicate intemperate violence. Zimmerman *might* have lashed out- he has more of a history of violent behavior, but less motive (I don’t think he was scared before the fight started, since he was pursuing Martin, and if he got scared when face-to-face with Martin it would’ve been easier for him to flee than attack).
But Zimmerman was very, very eager that Martin not get away. So Zimmerman trying to grapple or tackle Martin is my bet, to hold him until the police arrived.
Also, this is consistent with the one piece of verbal evidence that didn’t come from a participant- the phone call.
If not for the phone call, Id put more weight on the possibility that Zimmerman spooked Martin by reaching for his phone.
By the way, nobody has any comments at all on what Zimmerman has done now? What’s the matter, can’t fit it into the narrative?
Good on him, but not exactly relevant I think, on any level. Unless someone was arguing that Zimmerman is the devil incarnate upthread. And we’re hardly ignoring it if it came out today, huh?
Although this is sort of part and parcel of your erroneous thinking- no one here is engaging in the stereotype you want us to play. No one is calling Zimmerman a demon- a fool, maybe. And you’ve spent at least half of your time here calling out an argument that isn’t being made, not seeing that you are the only knee-jerk responder on this thread. The other conservatives are judging this by its merits, but you’ve got a script playing in your head, and it’s so obvious that you keep doing things such as this, lecturing the libruls about stuff they aren’t even doing: being against Neighborhood Watch, for example, or thinking that Zimmerman is pure evil.
In all honesty, I don’t know why you aren’t trolling a less serious , pure partisan liberal site. You could pretty easily find the sort of empty-headed responses that you’re apparently eager for (that you are, in fact, debating with even though absent). Why hang out at a relatively nuanced place if all you want to do is throw the conservative script of the day against the liberal script of the day?
“It means, there is no physical evidence as to who started the fight. Not a whit. Not a thimbleful. Not a wisp.”
All you’ve done is to take the available evidence, and declare it to not be evidence, on the basis of it not being utterly conclusive. That’s all.
But evidence does not have to be conclusive in order to be evidence. It just has to be something which would rationally effect your opinion of what happened. It doesn’t have to preclude alternate scenarios, just reduce their likelihood.
In the sense of ‘evidence’ used by people who are not desperate to deny something, there is evidence. Not as much as we’d like, but it’s there, and it does not point to the conclusion most here like.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
And yes, I’m happy to go back and forth with this until we fill up the Typepad server storage array.
I’ll code up a simple macro to spit out the first sentence of my comment at a single keystroke.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
It’s consistent with Martin starting the fight, and is also consistent with any number of other things.
And, the scenario of Martin throwing the first punch does not mean he is guilty of battery.
It depends on what happened immediately before the first punch was thrown. And we don’t know what that was.
Instead of asserting that I have some secret, or not so secret, agenda that prevents me from seeing what is so glaringly obvious to you, perhaps you would like to address the statements I’ve made in this comment.
Or not, as you wish. I’ll get my macro coded up.
“You have no wiggle room.”
“It depends on what happened immediately before the first punch was thrown. And we don’t know what that was.”
Yeah, we do. Trayvon Martin wiggled.
In roughly 1964, I was lying on my stomach on the family room floor watching James Brown on Dick Clark’s Bandstand and my grandfather, for whom I had and have great affection, and who grew up and lived just north (geographical, but south racially, as was most of the country for that matter) of the Mason-Dixon line south of Cincinnati, tapped be on the leg from behind with his cane and said “Countie, I hope you aren’t planning on wiggling like that.”
He had on numerous times by then and afterwards until 1968 remarked not very felicitously on the political wiggling of another black man, Martin Luther King, adding on occasion that “somebody ought to shoot that nigger. He’s a Communist”, which at the time was wiggling two ways, and like clockwork, as if crackers of one mind across the land mysteriously communicated with each other, J. Edgar Hoover removed Secret Service protection to King, which was afforded to all other major political figures.
Just repeating: No wiggle room.
I will say that my grandfather, while not ever agreeing with me (he died in 1970), would listen very patiently to my protestations regarding his views on these matters and, being a former semi-pro baseball player in the 1920s, no doubt of the Solly Hemus variety, but quieter, he would smile just as broadly as me when Cincinnati Reds stars Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, and Leo Cardenas, among others, would help the team win, as we listened to them on the radio together.
Course, Robinson, Pinson, and Cardenas never tried to date his womenfolk, or buy the house next to him, or walk by his house in the rain at night, or apply for a job at his business, examples of wiggling for which there was no room, though I’m sure if he had spotted Barack Obama standing aloof at a party, he would ask the man, politely, to fetch him a glass of chocolate milk, my grandfather not being a drinker.
No wiggle room.
And the room is getting smaller once again.
Here’s the lesson I draw from this: if you live in Florida and are white you can shoot non-white males no matter how you have contgributed to the incident, provided there are no witnesses. All you have to do is claim that at the last minute you tried to withdraw from the fight. Let the other party get a lick or two in, and then BAM!
White men have credibility. Black men are Wille Horton.
I guess it must be useful to some people to believe that this isn’t true. I don’t really understand the psychology of denial. I don’t know what a white person gains by pretending that black people, men and boys especially, aren’t subjected to a default assumption of probably being up to no good.
Acknowleding this dynamic in our society doesn’t make all of us whites into racists, after all. There’s nothing to get defensive about. It’s a real problem. It’s an immediate problem for black men and boys but in the end its a real problem for all of us. It’s healthier to face up to an deal wikth things than to try to pretend them away.
By the way Brett, you never told us how the location of the body indicated that Zimmerman was attacked rather than vice versa…
All you’ve done is to take the available evidence, and declare it to not be evidence, on the basis of it not being utterly conclusive. That’s all.
That is not what I said, that is not what I meant, and that is not the case.
There is no evidence as to who started the fight. Out of all of the scenarios that were possible, we exclude scenarios where Martin never punched Zimmerman. I don’t see why you think that affects who started the fight to any degree that we’d care about. Why you think that eg Zimmerman grabbing Martin is so unlikely as to be discountable.
I mean, if you said this moved you from 50/50 to 51/49, I could understand it. But you claim that it makes who started the fight virtually a known thing- you’ve referred to it over and over again as a fact.
You really have no idea who started the fight; the vast majority of what’s sitting on the scales is your finger.
But at least now you’ve found a safe position to defend. Done with mistaken invocations of Occam’s Razor, done with painting the victim as a villain, done with explaining eg how the location of Martin’s body show that Martin probably attacked Zimmerman, etc.
Now, you can just repeat, over and over again, that because Martin punched Zimmerman at some point in the fight, we can’t effectively doubt who started it. As russell said, we can just start copying and pasting now. And you can continue to pretend that you arent the one with the racially-tinged interpretation, that you are struggling against libruls who want to ban all guns and get rid of Neighborhood Watches, and that Trayvon Martin got what he deserved.
Here’s the lesson I draw from this: this case can and will be used as sole support for some opinion or other, to the exclusion of pretty much every other such occurrence.
Apropos of not much, here‘s a list of SYG cases in Florida. There’s a wide variety of such cases, involving people of all colors on either side of the gun.
The assumption that this case somehow establishes a new and different policy in the state of Florida is an ongoing mystery to me. Where does this idea come from?
Assuming this link works, here is an example of an African American successfully invoking SYG, in Florida, where the victim was white: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_89
I mention this because it isn’t as black and white as some would have it. Thanks, Slarti, for the useful link.
Also, FWIW, it isn’t too hard to find examples of Rev. Sharpton, among others, arguing justifiable homicide when roles are reversed. There is somewhat of a double standard at play here.
The link above also answers many of the rhetorical flourishes, including the President’s, to the effect that if roles had been reversed in the Martin/Zimmerman encounter, the outcome would have been different. Maybe, maybe not seems to be the more fact-based answer.
It comes from the fact that the people saying it were not previously aware of the law and its glorious legacy of inconsistent, convoluted, and outright twisted decisions arising from it. For them, this is the only data point, and never you mind that there are plenty of others, some far worse than this case.
Neat link, Slart. Not for nothing, but if you filter by race of the victim as “black” versus “white” you get 7/25 convictions/justifed and 30/39 convictions/justified, respectively. You have a much better chance of getting away with shooting a black person, it seems so far.
And those stats are completely meaningless. And you know it.
Hispanic on Black: 3 justified out of 3.
Sometimes the numbers are funny. I would expect some would make a great big deal out of this, for one reason or another.
Reading through the various stories, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
including the President’s
Just wanted to note that I didn’t really hear the same thing in the President’s remarks that you seem to have heard McK.
I guess I’d also like to note that, in my opinion, FL has no particular monopoly on black people receiving less-fair treatment from the law.
IMO that is an American problem. In my experience, folks in nice liberal elite coastal blue zones don’t really like black people any more than folks anywhere else.
Less so, by some lights. My opinion.
The SYG law as it stands in FL, and the way it is applied, seems bizarre to me. But not due to racial aspects, it just seems like a weird law.
It does appear, however, to be what the people of FL want.
Reading through the various stories, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Ain’t that the truth.
And those stats are completely meaningless. And you know it.
No I don’t. They may not be dispositive, but there are enough cases in each category to provide evidence of a trend developing, given the significant disparity But I used the words “so far, it seems” for a reason. That apparent, developing trend may well disappear over time once more cases are on the books, but I still wouldn’t say they’re “completely meaningless.”
Slart may expect someone to make “a great big deal” out of a category with only 3 cases so far, but it won’t be me. I don’t even think I made “a great big deal” out of the cases I mentioned. (And it wasn’t even my link, intended to make my point.)
Here’s what I think the possibilities are:
1) Black people are being treated unfairly under the law
2) Black people (men, mostly) are committing crimes with a higher frequency.
3) Fill in the blank.
I would tend to view it as some combination of 1) and 2). And no, I am not going to speculate as to weighting. I will leave that to you, the reader, so that I can ridicule your choices.
My own feeling is that there is rather more of both factors at work here than I personally would prefer.
Actually, it was not you that I had in mind. But I am not saying, because my mother told me if I couldn’t say anything nice…
Also, FWIW, it isn’t too hard to find examples of Rev. Sharpton, among others, arguing justifiable homicide when roles are reversed. There is somewhat of a double standard at play here.
He advocates for black people. They probably need him more than white people do. [White people have Pat Buchanan and Brett Bellmore. ;)] That’s not to say I agree with Sharpton all the time, but his double standard is in opposition to a much larger double standard.
Or do you think black people are and have been, on the whole, treated just as well as white people economically, politically, socially, and legally in these United States of America?
“Or do you think black people are and have been, on the whole, treated just as well as white people economically, politically, socially, and legally in these United States of America?”
Do you think that, by itself, the prior treatment of black people should change a murder into justifiable homicide? I would add that there are a lot more poor and disenfranchised white people than black in America. So lets focus on legally.
Here’s what I think the possibilities are:
1) Black people are being treated unfairly under the law
2) Black people (men, mostly) are committing crimes with a higher frequency.
3) Fill in the blank.
I would tend to view it as some combination of 1) and 2).
I don’t think we need to run 1 and 2 together like this since they seem to be independently verifiable. 2 is clearly true, I dont think many would argue that point (altho there’d be much debate about causes). 1 also appears to be true, due to eg the statsitical effect of perp and victim race on prosecution and conviction rates, the rates of casual drug use versus drug convictions in the various communities etc. That’s without going into areas that require obvious opinion (eg powder cocaine versus crack sentencing).
Not trying to pick nits since we seem to agree. Guess it’s just my nature.
Many things can be true simultaneously.
Even contradictory things.
There is an attitude abraod in our culture, not confined to Florida, that assumes the worst of black men and boys.
The same people who think that way could be without any prejudice at all toward a black man or boy of their acquaintance.
The same person, if on a jury, might be open to evidence that would free a wrongfully accused black man.
Or not.
A particular black person who triggers this assumption in a white person might actually be up to no good.
Or not.
That black man might assume that white people are jumping to negative conclusions about him when they aren’t.
He could even use that negative assumption to cloud the waters if caught doing something he shouldn’t.
All of those things could happen.
But being the target of negative assumptions is a very common experience not only for black men and boys but for women, too. Much of the power of the myth about welfare Cadillacs and multiple babies to get eligibility for welfare and welfare causing the deficit comes from the assumption that the welfare cheater is going to be a black woman.
(And of course not all white people think that way.)
A little story: Several years ago I had a work colleague who had an usual background.She was black but had been adopted at birth by a moderately wealthy white family. She grew up in a nearly all white environment. She had an East Coast Ivy League prep school education followed by admission to Bryn Mawr.
She rode the bus to class, which meant standing at the same bus stop every day. One day whileshe was standing there a white lady came out of her house and said something to the effect of “You look so nice and clean. Would you like a job as my maid? I need more household staff.”
My acquaintance was aware that she came from a very previleged background. Even as a small child she knew that she would be able to go to college, have a career if she wanted one, and never be in need. But she had the weird simultaneous experience of often being treated like a person who did not belong in that position.
She wasn’t mad at the white lady, because, she said, thre’s nothing wrong with being a maid. And this experience of often being presumed to belong to a lower class kept her from developing the vice of the upper classes: that sense of being entitled to privilege, or worse the sense of having earned what was inherited or what came with skin color.
But this is all a digression of sorts. Being presumed to be a criminal is worse and more dangerous than being presumed to be a maid or a welfare cheater. The point is there needs to be a recognition that the presumptions are out there and they effect not only the actions of individuals but also the formation of policy. And cause a reaction in some of the people who are the targets of the negative assumptions.
It’s the sort of cultural problem that can be changed.
“They may not be dispositive, but there are enough cases in each category to provide evidence of a trend developing, given the significant disparity But I used the words “so far, it seems” for a reason.”
OK, so it is also easier to claim SYI if you are black. The same convicted/Justified for a black accused is 11/24. For white accused, 25/40.
Perhaps more interesting is the split of Black on White cases, and White on Black cases: 9 and 11 total, respectively. In 6 years.
If there is anything that irritates me about the Zimmerman/Martin case is the widespread discussion about how it is typical. How it points out a hidden common theme in our society.
These statistics (and every crime stat that I’ve read) indicate that there is so little black on white crime, or white on black crime, that this situation simply can’t be considered “the norm”. It is a tiny sliver of the gun, violence, crime, legal issues we have in our country, just by virtue of how rare it is.
Do you think that, by itself, the prior treatment of black people should change a murder into justifiable homicide?
Of course I do. That should be obvious from all the things I’ve written to that effect.
I would add that there are a lot more poor and disenfranchised white people than black in America.
Talk about a completely meaningless stat.
So lets focus on legally.
Be my guest. Good luck.
“She rode the bus to class, which meant standing at the same bus stop every day. One day while she was standing there a white lady came out of her house and said something to the effect of “You look so nice and clean. Would you like a job as my maid? I need more household staff.””
What year was this? Just curious.
“I would add that there are a lot more poor and disenfranchised white people than black in America.
Talk about a completely meaningless stat.”
Why would that be meaningless?
OK, so it is also easier to claim SYI if you are black. The same convicted/Justified for a black accused is 11/24. For white accused, 25/40.
But aren’t those numbers a whole lot closer to one another percentage-wise than when comparing conviction rates by the race of the victim? The disparity you note could disappear with a couple of cases going the other way. The conviction rate for white accused isn’t twice that of black accused, like it is for white/black victims.
Why would that be meaningless?
Not playing, but thanks.
you started it, but I’m ok not playing.
If there is anything that irritates me about the Zimmerman/Martin case is the widespread discussion about how it is typical. How it points out a hidden common theme in our society.
If you read the theme as ‘black person suspected of various bad things just for walking down the street’, then I think it is something that deserves discussion. Or, if you look at it from a longer historical perspective, there is a significant history of blacks being controlled by violence which was then not prosecuted or for which no convictions could be secured.
For the latter point, Id say that the history of stand your ground isn’t indicative of a particularly extensive racial bias. otoh, maybe a little more sympathy is in order, it’s not like the Civil Rights Movement is beyond living memory or anything. If you can’t see why the black community might have a hair-trigger on someone shooting an innocent black teenager and walking away, well, I don’t know what to say.
What year was this? Just curious.
The incident where Obama was asked to fetch somebody a drink at one of Tina Brown’s groovy parties was while he was an IL state senator, so sometime between ’97 – ’04.
That aspect of things is not something that’s only in the past.
I actually don’t believe that story.
OK Marty, whatever.
It’s not like it’s the only time anything like that has ever happened.
And it’s not just black people. Hispanics put up with it. A good friend of mine is married to a Puerto Rican woman, when their kids were little everyone in their white bread Long Island suburb assumed she was the nanny. Like, all the time.
Anyone who might conceivably be mistaken for ‘a Muslim’ (whatever they look like) puts up with it.
People from the south put up with it, in many circles anyone who speaks with a drawl is assumed to be a moron.
Remember when you objected to my referring to Tea Partiers as calling government ‘gummint’? What was that about?
Sucks when it’s directed at people you identify with, right?
Prejudice, and the perception of prejudice whether it’s intended or not, are not unusual phenomena.
Whether you believe it or not.
And for young black men, it’s close to constant.
I actually don’t believe that story.
Im kinda boggled by that. Do you think that this sort of casual assumption about race is genuinely rare?
Russell,
I don’t believe a lot about the Obama legend. There are too many places it is made up, stretched etc. Meant to fit his back story. From his books on. Lots of stories that sound good when needed.
Carleton,
There is still prejudice, and then there are assumptions when people seem out of place experientially, those are really different things. Sometimes my answer these days is, get over yourself, much like the nice lady in Laura’s story seemed to.
Oddly as a Texan in NE I have certainly over the years experienced prejudice beyond Russell’s gummint comments. It’s amazing how many Northerners imagine Texans are actually stupid, all of us.
I also have, in my life, experienced women being afraid to be on an elevator with me, changing sides of the street when they saw me coming(I often did that so they didn’t have to), and any number of other experiences based on how I looked at the time.
One advantage is that I could have cut my hair and changed clothes and it would have solved much of that. It’s hard not to be black, but I also wonder if different clothes and attitudes might have made some of those folks on elevators a little more comfortable. But it wouldn’t have solved all of them. There is prejudice.
Also, in certain neighborhoods it doesn’t matter what color you are, they are going to cross the street rather than walk by you.
But then, it happened to me on a street down by the Garden in Boston last year, I was in jeans, white shirt and dark sports coat. 11 o’clock on a non-game night and the streets were pretty empty. Even the Greatest Bar was dead. I was on the sidewalk having a smoke across from my hotel, they stopped half a block away, hesitated, crossed, and watched me like a hawk until they were out on the main road. Somehow I wasn’t insulted at all.
There are many fewer things that only a young black man has to deal with, not none, than those that any young man might have to deal with. I was followed around department stores, for example. (I did not have on my prep school blazer.) I was harassed by cops (put your hands on the steering wheel, leave them there until instructed to do something, tell the officer what you are doing before you do it, especially reaching into the glove compartment, nothing sudden, no raised voice, sir). I am not sure everyone had those experiences, but I think more did than one might imagine.
Just for kicks I will throw in that when I lived in the primarily poor, black (redundant at the time, not anymore) part of Dallas for a while I did not have to be prejudiced to be scared. The fear of gangs was real and warranted, also the dislike of white people, and you paid with a beating, if not your life, if you weren’t careful and a little paranoid. A black kid seven or eight blocks away would have had exactly the same experience.
Life is full of experiences, many not good. The range for young black men is probably skewed, at times, to include more bad than some other young men. It should be getting better. It might be nice, for everyone, if they knew that all of those experiences aren’t unique to being black.
It’s amazing how many Northerners imagine Texans are actually stupid, all of us.
You did give us George W Bush. What did you expect us to think about you after you did that?
I don’t believe a lot about the Obama legend
Fair enough.
I missed your point, I thought you were dismissing the idea of a black person (generic black person, not Obama specifically) being mistaken (by virtue of being black) for a waiter.
In all seriousness, it seems like Texas is basically run by stupid people. I mean, they don’t have functioning fire codes to keep people from setting up houses and schools in close proximity to deadly explosives…isn’t that just dumb? Isn’t that a problem that solved centuries ago? But not in Texas for some reason….
See my answers on that thread…..
Then you trotted out Rick Perry and Louie Gohmert, as if tripling down.
The former’s legend consists of one unverified shot coyote, which reminds me of another unwitnessed story.
Then you have Texan Michelle Bachmann, Texan Steve King, Texan Saran Palin …. wait a second …. there must be other variables at work here ….. maybe the entire country is salted with dumbassity and it somehow, in recent years, has concentrated itself to one side of the spectrum, unlike most of American history in which flat-out stupid was a more bipartisan phenomenon, excepting maybe the Civil War period when ignoramuses called the Democratic Party home, and the rest is history until Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon (two crafty bastards) gave a look hither to the Democrats and said “Come home to papa, Stupid!”, this after LBJ (another crafty bastard) wised up.
I count five Texans who post here, or have posted in the past, here and all of them are smarter than I am, so I guess it depends on where you choose your sample.
Maybe it’s the accent, by which I mean that fake one that George W. Bush put on.
I’ll concede that Tom Delay and Dick Armey have native intelligence because someone has to keep the utterly corrupt reptilian wing of the Republican Party from being overrun by vacuity.
You did give us George W Bush. What did you expect us to think about you after you did that?
I thought the North returned the favor with Joe Biden.
I tend to agree with Marty–Obama is the hero or the victim in all of his stories, always consistent with *the narrative* and too many of them don’t hold up on closer scrutiny.
I’ve never seen an African American in a social context assumed to be a waiter or whatever, but I am not shocked that it happens even though it shouldn’t. What I have seen, even today, is professionals assuming women are clerical, who are not, and that men are professional, who are not.
My last trial involved a black plaintiff, a black judge and the two witnesses most adverse to the plaintiff’s story were black. A 9 white, 2 black jury outvoted 1 Asian juror and found very handsomely for the black plaintiff. The black judge thinks the award is too high and gave my corporate client a very fair trial.
Two offices down the hall is my black law partner. Just out my door is a black secretary who also administers our office (my firm merged with a large national operation last September).
Turb, we may be dumbasses down here–accidents don’t happen up north, that’s a known fact–but I have to say, I like the way most folks get along and I like the fact that most folks have work, or could have if they wanted it. I also like our booming real estate market and our relatively low cost of living. I guess we just got lucky.
I thought the North returned the favor with Joe Biden.
Joe Biden started a war that killed a million people for no apparent reason? Really? Huh.
McTex, the wealth disparity between the median black family and median white family is a factor of 20x. But I guess that’s not true because you have an anecdote about a case involving a black judge and plaintiff and jury. Do they teach statistics in law school or do they only cover anecdote?
accidents don’t happen up north
Accidents happen all the time, but we try and do things to prevent stupid accidents from happening. I mean, drunk drivers have “accidents”, but we still make drunk driving illegal, rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying “meh, accidents happen, what can you do”. Maybe Texas should look into that. You know, if you can get your legislature to show up for work for more than a few weeks a year.
Marty wrote:
“But then, it happened to me on a street down by the Garden in Boston last year, I was in jeans, white shirt and dark sports coat. 11 o’clock on a non-game night and the streets were pretty empty. Even the Greatest Bar was dead. I was on the sidewalk having a smoke across from my hotel, they stopped half a block away, hesitated, crossed, and watched me like a hawk until they were out on the main road. Somehow I wasn’t insulted at all.”
Yes, generally speaking, everyone is paranoid in the big city, especially as you drift north and east. Folks are actually friendlier and more relaxed as you move south and west, not that they aren’t beyond pre-judging and hating the content of your individual character before knowing you.
But I want to ask if the folks in the back story called the cops on you or did they just follow Neighborhood Watch protocol, instead of following you, better than George Zimmerman did and leave it that?
As to Obama’s legend, do we have a Presidential autobiography in which heroism and victimization are not the highlights, excepting maybe Harry Truman’s, and maybe Dwight Eisenhower’s?
After all, these things are not tweets in which “I just ate four Cheetos” are chapter headings.
I’ll take Obama’s hagiography, such as it is, over the bombastic crap the Right has made of it.
Now George Washington and the cherry tree.
That’s gotta be a whopper, right?
Before we get too far down the “stupid” road, Joe Biden voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and had been hot on deposing Saddam militarily for years.
As to Texas anecdotes, how is it that good, capable people like the Judge and the plaintiff and the jury aren’t running the place instead of Perry, Gohmert, and company?
Joe Biden started a war that killed a million people for no apparent reason? Really? Huh.
No, he voted for it, along with a lot of other smart folks from the north. Unlike the current administration, Bush actually followed constitutional form before going to war. Your statement is counter-factual.
Do they teach statistics in law school or do they only cover anecdote?
Neither. The general subject matter is *law*. The subject here is race relations, not wealth disparity, which is a function of education, including type of degree (teachers make less than engineers or MBA’s; Black Studies majors don’t bring a lot to the table when the topic is providing a useful good or service).
But, to take your witty retort to its logical conclusion, the Martin/Zimmerman episode was, when you boil it down, an anecdote, yet you and many others use it to argue the larger picture.
Urban Texas cities are very diverse, and folks get along pretty well here. Our mayor is gay and highly regarded across political and social lines. She doesn’t hide her orientation, she shows up and says all the right things on Gay Pride Day, but other than that, she’s simply competent. Up until five years ago, our next door neighbors were black. We moved three weeks ago into a six unit townhouse project–our next door neighbor is Asian, and two houses down, our neighbors are black. My golf club is pricey and has a very limited membership, yet that membership is over-represented by African Americans. After a while, the anecdotes add up. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that. Which is not to say our rural areas invariably follow form or that our law enforcement is as race neutral as I would like.
Racism remains a part of certain facets of Texas. Which is major progress from the old days. And even where it remains somewhat visible, that gets less and less over time.
My son lived in NJ for six years. He heard white people use the N word routinely. It is very, very rare to hear that down here and when it is heard, people usually turn away.
Maybe Texas should look into that. You know, if you can get your legislature to show up for work for more than a few weeks a year.
How often do we hear about passenger train, ferry and bus accidents from up north? Regulated? Yes. A panacea? No.
As for our legislature, many of us consider it to be a good thing when it is not in session.
It’s a long, long, long thread, and in the end all we find out is that people are more or less wedded to their preconceptions.
I don’t *need* a drink, but I *want* one real bad.
As to Texas anecdotes, how is it that good, capable people like the Judge and the plaintiff and the jury aren’t running the place instead of Perry, Gohmert, and company
Good question and thanks for beating me to the punch on Biden. As I’ve said before, I gave money to Bill White. Perry is a douche. Kind of the plus about Texas is that, other than grandstanding on social issues, our legislature and governor don’t do much that upsets people, and most Texans are pro-life anyway. My beef with Perry and his ilk is that they are crooked. They don’t make stupid, large scale decisions and they aren’t overtly taking graft Chicago-style; rather, they stack the deck at the periphery to suck up to big donors, primarily on tort reform. Leaving aside social issues, there isn’t a lot of distance between typical Dems and Repubs down here IF we confine ourselves to our urban centers. Texas is very business-friendly, anti-corporate bias is rare outside the very small class of hard corp lefties and the general view is live and let live.
The death penalty gives a lot of outsiders a lot of heart burn, but it’s widely supported here, and the support runs across racial and political lines. You won’t see public opinion change on this issue for some decades to come, if ever.
I don’t *need* a drink, but I *want* one real bad.
I make it a point to not let it get that far. I almost always hit the cocktail hour long before either *need* or *want* enter the picture.
Unlike the current administration, Bush actually followed constitutional form before going to war. Your statement is counter-factual.
I’m very curious what this is supposed to refer to. I certainly have no overabundance of love for the Obama regime, but at the same time I fail to see any “wars” he’s started… and anything objectionable on a smaller scale that he’s done is nothing Bush wasn’t doing alongside the wars he got Congressional to rubberstamp. Basically, I fail to see any basis for, or value in, this petty little jab.
Yes, I’m from Pittsburgh and the “n” word has always been routine. It wasn’t too long ago that I could say it was the most racist city going.
They’ve had democratic mayors since David Lawrence, but most of the folks I know, pretty much Republicans across the board, many of them with bad attitudes about blacks, would vote in a landslide for Rick Perry, were he the Republican candidate.
It’s hard to generalize, which is why I do it all the time.
*Congress to
Half-@ssed proofreading of compulsive stylistic “improvements” arising from more diligent proofreading yet again rears its hideous head. *sigh*
Given the differences in outcomes and body counts between Bush’s Constitutional wars and Obama’s un-Constitutional wars, collective legal stupidity comes up short, though if Obama gets dragooned into Constitutional wars in Syria and/or Iran, he’ll be a legend in John McCain’s mind.
I’m mostly kidding, but there is something about the enthusiasm for the death penalty in Texas across racial and political lines, and MckT’s statement years ago, it seems, way up thread that he is is likely to have his weapon handy for suspicious characters in the neighborhood without regardless of their race, etc that smacks of “Hell, we’ll take a shot at anybody given half a chance!”
I giveth and I taketh away.
“without regardless of their race” ???????
I blame Nombrilisme Vide for that.
Also, “is is”
I stutter even while sky writing.
It’s Tuesday. Feels like Friday.
See ya Monday, unless you wanna talk about thug gangsters from Wall Street ranging through the neighborhood in suspicious suits moving aluminum and other commodities around like the Mafia figuring the vig on olive oil.
How come we don’t find these guys at their desks and shoot them for obvious theft.
Racism remains a part of certain facets of Texas.
As a long-time resident of the people’s republic of MA, and a lifelong resident of the urban northeast, I can confidently say:
Likewise.
Not all that much love for the richly complected hereabouts.
Not a lot of room for pointing fingers on this particular issue. Fifty years ago, maybe – then again, depending on where in the north you lived, maybe not – but nowadays, not really.
My opinion.
“The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
It’s consistent with Martin starting the fight, and is also consistent with any number of other things.”
Yes, but it rules out all “Zimmerman started the fight” scenarios which would have left physical evidence. That’s a rather substantial narrowing of the possibilities, which rationally makes the conclusion that Zimmerman didn’t start the fight at all more plausible. In this sense it is evidence that he didn’t start the fight.
Absent the knowledge that Martin had no injuries prior to the gun shot, and Zimmerman did, we could imagine either Martin OR Zimmerman starting the fight in a manner which did OR did not leave physical evidence. Four major classes of scenarios.
But given this knowledge, we can still contemplate the full range of Martin starts the fight scenarios, as he could have started the fight in a way which left no marks, and then proceeded from there to acts leaving injuries. Or just started with a punch to the nose right at the beginning, as Zimmerman testified.
But we must discard all scenarios which involve Zimmerman starting the fight in a manner which leaves physical evidence. We now have THREE major classes of scenarios, two of which implicate Martin, and only ONE of which implicates Zimmerman.
This is the function of evidence: To narrow the admissible range of possibilities. The pattern of injuries in fact does this, it constitutes evidence.
Whether you like that or not.
But we must discard all scenarios which involve Zimmerman starting the fight in a manner which leaves physical evidence. We now have THREE major classes of scenarios, two of which implicate Martin, and only ONE of which implicates Zimmerman.
Brett, I get that you really, REALLY want this to be true, and (at the risk of incurring Carnac penalties) I also kinda get the idea that the very-conceivable “class of scenarios” where Zimmerman commits battery w/o causing obvious damage isn’t IYO really “starting the fight”, and the law be damned. But your “major classes of scenarios” are uninformatively arbitrary groupings, and the fact that there’s two that please you versus one that doesn’t is exactly as insightful as me saying that it’s as likely as not that I’ll roll a six on a fair die, because the two classes of outcomes are “rolled a six” and “didn’t roll a six”.
We do not know what happened. We cannot know what happened. And of the scenarios that could have happened, the ones you favor are no more certain than those you dismiss out of hand, and no amount of hand-wringing or special pleading is going to change that.
Shoot. Now I’m a lot older than Zimmerman, but I’m also not nearly as rash, so that’s a wash. Were I to physically confront a younger man, by grabbing or pushing or swinging at or any other manner of “Oh no you don’t,” I’d say there’s about a 90% chance that I would leave no physical evidence before my opponent either walked away or beat me to a pulp. Your scenarios assume that Zimmerman was an effective fighter – but why assume that? What is there in his record that suggests to you that he’s capable of (likely to) smite his opponent with enough brute force to leave traces?
We’re not all the warriors you are, Brett!
(And most of us manage without even carrying guns, nevertheless.)
Oh, and on the subject of Texas, those of you who don’t usually read Slacktivist should do so today.
Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas. Texas.
That’s a rather substantial narrowing of the possibilities
To a remainder more than sufficiently large enough to make drawing conclusions unwise.
Did ZImmerman threaten Martin?
Did he push Martin?
Did he run at Martin, or approach him so closely as to present a credible threat?
Did he swing at Martin and miss?
Off the top of my head. All exactly as possible as ‘Martin threw the first punch’.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Whether you like that or not.
I’m not invested either way. The things that stand out in all of this, to me, are:
1. Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin was not supported by anything we know about Martin’s behavior. So, to my eye, another example of a black kid drawing unwarranted suspicion, due to skin color.
Yes, I’m aware that black people allegedly burgled homes in the area. Martin was not one of them, and did nothing to give any reasonable person cause to think he was.
2. IMO Zimmerman behaved rashly and irresponsibly, and so owns some responsibility – how much is unclear, but much more than zero – for Martin’s death. Not just my opinion, also the opinion of the National Sheriff’s Association, aka Neighborhood Watch. Also the opinion of most folks here, with the possibly unique exception of yourself.
That being so, I find it regrettable that there is no vehicle in the law available to make him bear that responsibility.
Neither of those points are affected, one way or the other, by whether Martin threw the first punch or not.
I’m not invested. I just don’t like BS to stand if it can be helped.
The fact that Martin did not take a beating does not mean that he started the fight.
Oh, and on the subject of Texas, those of you who don’t usually read Slacktivist should do so today.
Here’s my thing about Texas.
I grew up in NY, which means I’m probably disqualified for life from pointing at any other locality and exclaiming “WTF?!?!?”
I mean, the current mayor wants to outlaw putting more than one pat of butter on your toast, and one of the likely next mayors can’t seem to stop sending pictures of his johnson to random admirers. Or, at least in his mind, admirers.
Here is Boston, we’re currently being treated to the trial of a candidate for Most Vicious Dude On The Planet Who Is Not A Third World Dictator. For most of his career, his brother was the president of the MA Senate. His life on the lam came to an end when he was fingered by the Noxema girl, now living in her native Iceland.
Every place is weird.
We now have THREE major classes of scenarios, two of which implicate Martin, and only ONE of which implicates Zimmerman.
This is the function of evidence: To narrow the admissible range of possibilities. The pattern of injuries in fact does this, it constitutes evidence.
Whether you like that or not.
So you’ve gone from stating that Martin started the fight as a fact, to using some (odd) reasoning to say that you’re, what, 67% sure that Martin started the fight. So your conclusions have at least evolved (until Roofie Time, anyway).
Problem with your reasoning is this: of the four classes of scenarios, we don’t have any particular reason to give each an equal weight of 25%. We have lots of information about the individuals and circumstances which allow us to weight these in a much more informed manner.
eg of the four, Id put ‘Zimmerman starts the fight in a way that inflicts an injury’ as the least likely even before the physical evidence eliminates it. Zimmerman’s motive was following Martin and possibly preventing him from fleeing, so pistol-whipping him wouldn’t seem like a likely way of carrying out that desire, it would only get Zimmerman in trouble with the soon-to-arrive police. ‘Martin starts the fight in a way that does inflict an injury’ is much more likely- facing an unknown pursuer at night, he isn’t likely to try to restrain etc Zimmerman. He’s likely to lash out or run.
Your weightings might differ, that’s all opinion. And that’s fine. But what won’t stand (and what apparently isn’t standing any more) is your assertion that it’s basically proven that Martin was the aggressor, or that things which don’t leave evidence by their nature cannot be part of a rational reconstruction of the events.
I always get my masturbating fetuses and Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman mixed up.
Now, which one stopped masturbating at birth?
I hope the Noxema girl put Noxema on her finger before and after she fingered Most Vivious Dude.
Happily, the mayors you speak of, aren’t sending tweeted photos of pats of butter to random admirers and outlawing placing more than one johnson on our toast.
Doing any of the above could cause fetuses in Texas to masturbate and likely be executed once they come of age.
One downside of the pro-life position in Texas is that you must stop masturbating at birth, which may cause Rick Perry to change sides in the debate.
My son lived in NJ for six years. He heard white people use the N word routinely.
Hey, was he hanging out with my grandmother?
For bipartisan effect, when it was revealed on the Texas Senate floor that fetuses masturbate, six conservatives and six liberals got up off the floor and switched their votes on the Bill, with one libertarian objecting strenuously to conservative efforts to amend the bill to censure the viewing of ultrasounds by anyone under the age of 21 while fetuses are masturbating — to protect the children.
The Texas Republican Guard, which is now quartered in vaginas across the State of Texas, threatened a walkout if fetuses continue to masturbate, only to find, upon walking out, that they were in a back alley in Guadalajara.
One stalwart conservative pledged to remain inserted within vaginas come hell or broken water, if only to affix tiny iron mittens to the hands of fetuses and for the male fetuses, something called the Delay Cuff, invented by Tom Delay for his fellow inmates while he was in prison.
Marty, she told me the story in about 1998 when we worked together. She was probably thirty or so at that time and speaking of her college years. I assumed undergrad years, but I don’t know why.
Thanks Laura!
Laura: The point is there needs to be a recognition that the presumptions are out there and they effect not only the actions of individuals but also the formation of policy.
This is totally true, and many people aren’t conscious at all of their prejudices, or more often, have to consciously shake their prejudices aside because they were brought up in a certain environment and have to say to themselves, “No, I’m thinking in the way I was brought up to think, and it’s full of prejudice: don’t do that.”
Tests have been done showing that professors who grade anonymously are fair to women, but professors who see the names (and can assume the gender) of their students are biased towards men. This is true even with women professors.
In other words, everyone is socialized with prejudices (maybe not racial – maybe class or gender or appearance or accent or whatever) and assumptions. People who aren’t willing to examine their own attitudes will never be fair to other people.
The fact is, though, that many white people in this country have been socialized to see African-American people as “other”. For anyone to pretend that black people aren’t disadvantaged by this reality is crazy. We’re getting better (because of the very hard work of the civil rights movement, and the good will of most people), but we haven’t yet completely overcome. In fact, we have a lot more work to do.
Let’s let go of Occam’s Razor for a moment. Brett has stropped that thing so long he’s got it worn down to a sliver. George Zimmerman won’t serve any jail time because a jury found him not guilty, and according to the law currently in force they may well have made the correct decision.
None of which changes the underlying reality: as long as you stay scared of boogey men, of which the “thug” Trayvon Martin stands as the most current example, then you won’t be free. 10,000 megatons of nuclear deterrence can’t keep people who indulge their fears free. Sixteen aircraft carrier battle groups can’t keep frightened people free. An arsenal of guns in every private home can’t keep people who indulge their fears free.
Other people have pointed out the effects “white” people’s fears have on racialized young men; I will simply point out that as long as people identified as “white” indulge their (our) fears, they (we) will also forfeit our freedom.
“Hell, we’ll take a shot at anybody given half a chance!”
I’ve picked up a gun twice under unpleasant circumstances, once, at night, when I was twelve and watching my younger brother and sister and someone tried to break in the house and once when a neighbor woman called our house and said that someone had broken in. I was scared to death both times and hope to never have to do something like that again. But, if the situation arises, I’d rather have a shotgun or a pistol than a baseball bat, particularly at my age.
THis is from the Washington Monthly and provides an example of how fear of the Other, negative assumptions, can drive policy, even when individuals are not prejudice against African-Americans they are acqainted with. It’s those other people…
“David Leonhardt’s troubling piece today in the New York Times on recent data about social mobility is worth dwelling and puzzling over as raising as many questions as it answers. He certainly got my attention by focusing on Atlanta as a place where the combination of segregation by income level and a sprawling economy means the opportunity for access to the kind of jobs that make it possible to rise into the middle-class are exceptionally sparse:
The comparison of metropolitan areas allows researchers to consider local factors that previous mobility studies could not — including a region’s geography. And in Atlanta, the most common lament seems to be precisely that concentrated poverty, extensive traffic and a weak public-transit system make it difficult to get to the job opportunities. “When poor communities are segregated,” said Cindia Cameron, an organizer for 9 to 5, a women’s rights group, “everything about life is harder.”
Anyone who has lived in Atlanta (as I did for the better part of three decades) is aware that these factors are hardly accidental: feverish opposition to the expansion of MARTA, Atlanta’s public transportation system, into the suburbs was acutely associated with the desire to prevent—literally—“mobility” for those people. When there was talk of Cobb County (the close-in surburb where I went to high school) joining MARTA, you could see bumper stickers on cars in the area’s legendary traffic jams reading “Take MARTA to Cobb and Rob.”
This is the key point: “feverish opposition to the expansion of MARTA, Atlanta’s public transportation system, into the suburbs was acutely associated with the desire to prevent—literally—“mobility” for those people.”
I hear the same attitude expressed toward “renters”. In this area “renters” is code for Central American immigrants although it can also mean “white Trash”. (We don’t have eough AA’s around here for them to be a focus of negative assumptions so our county has to focus on someone else).
McK T: I believe you, and admire your restraint. But I keep thinking: if there are a thousand gun owners, and just one percent of them don’t think like you do, then there are ten more armed lunatics we have to worry about.
I don’t have a gun, don’t need a gun, don’t really want a gun. If you keep dangerous stuff around, it’s just that much more likely that something bad will happen.
That said:
I live in a town that is 4 square miles in size. The cop shop is about a mile and a half from my house. Violent crimes occur here about once a generation. The cops don’t have that much to do, and if I called 911 they’d probably be here in about 2 minutes.
If somebody breaks in, my wife and I will climb out the bedroom window (we live in a ranch) and go next door (it’s about 30 feet away), ring the bell, and call the cops from our neighbor’s house. Our neighbors would be fine with that.
If I lived someplace where it was, remotely, likely that the house might be invaded, or where the cops were more than a minute or two away, or if it wasn’t dead easy to just leave the house and walk away, or if we had some kind of really valuable stuff that might actually attract the attention of somebody with ill intent, I would consider keeping a gun in the house.
There’s nothing magic, pro or con, about guns. They’re tools. They’re dangerous, so they deserve more thought and caution than, for instance, a socket wrench, but ultimately they’re just tools.
Thanks, MckT.
For the record (not the “permanent” one my mother use to refer to that was being kept by the mysterious powers that be, the internet one wherein my equivocation is being monitored and compiled by Google and the NSA – which I always thought meant “No Strings Attached …), I can’t make the case for curtailing gun ownership* for protection in one’s home, though the list of stupid killings now being cited daily by various blogs in which little children are shooting slightly bigger children** is sober reading.
I hate concealed carry in public. I hate non-concealed carry in public, for those ready to jump through loopholes.
*pistols, shotguns, hunting weapons, knives, baseball bats, high-pitched screaming, wetting one’s pants all O.K., I guess. The bigger stuff should be cut off at the source – the manufacturers, including bombing the factories when they move abroad to serve the U.S. black market.
**one case the other day: Clown #1 gives Clown Friend #2 his weapon to protect the former’s house and wife/girlfriend while he was out and about. Clown #1 returns home later. Clown Friend #2 shoots Clown #1, believing him to be an intruder.
I’ve been thinking about my own negative assumptions. When I first met my soon-to=be husband, he told me that he owned a cabin in the woods. That appealed to me greatly–a cabin back in the woods!
Well it is actually a condo in a gated community that has a covenent protecting the trees. There are lots of trees, to the point that most of the homes are hard to see from the road even though there are A LOT of home crowded into the woods.Still it was not what I was expecting.
Any way I did have pretty strong negative reaction to the fancy wrought iron gate, the high fence hidden by trees and shrubs, but there nethertheless,the twee spelling of the community’s name, and the golf carts buzzing around on the roads. It all said, ” I will not fit in here.”
I’m much more comfortable with the other gated community on the island: a walled compound of homemade cabins and cottages up a dirt track in the woods where live some aging vets with their innumerable cats and elderly dogs who smoke pot like other people breath. Not that I would actually want to live there because they have no running water. But I am comfortable there while I take care of an elderly disabled member of the little community. They aren’t scary people.
Anyway after having lived in my gated community long enough to get to know some of the golfcart drivers I have overcome my bad immpression. It’s actually a pretty diverse community. There’s a lot of tempset in the teapot politics and some serious feuds between neighbors. We have one scary guy who threatens people, mostly verbally, but once with a weapon. We have some eccentrics and people who are deeply offended by eccentricity. But mostly its a community of retired white collar people who have done interesting things all of their lives and who are still doing interesting things.
So not a cabin in the woods but not Camazotz either.
if there are a thousand gun owners, and just one percent of them don’t think like you do, then there are ten more armed lunatics we have to worry about.
This argument applies to people who drink, who smoke dope and any number of other matters that don’t come immediately to mind. There are millions of gun owners in Texas. A very small minority are criminals. Your observation seems focused on the non-criminal but potential vigilante-type element. I don’t have the stats handy–there may not be any that are reliable–but vigilante style incidents are rare. More common are accidental discharges resulting from irresponsible adults or children getting a hold of loaded guns. Folks who don’t like guns think this is a huge problem. For me, it is no more of a problem than careless or drunk drivers. I am indifferent to the means of inflicting a tragedy and inured to the fact of tragedy. In fact, I just got off the phone with a lawyer friend of mine whose client’s wife was killed by a guy who got big drunk at a restaurant I was hired this morning to defend. Short version of the conversation: let me do my due diligence and I’ll have a large check coming your way in 90 days or less.
If you keep dangerous stuff around, it’s just that much more likely that something bad will happen.
I quibble with this. If you are stupid, careless and irresponsible, bad sh*t is going to happen. An unloaded gun, or a loaded gun kept in a safe place is no more dangerous than a car sitting in the driveway and is less dangerous than a can of gasoline sitting in someone’s garage.
There’s nothing magic, pro or con, about guns. They’re tools. They’re dangerous, so they deserve more thought and caution than, for instance, a socket wrench, but ultimately they’re just tools.
This I agree with, again with the caveat that stupid people can and will do stupid things.
Scratch everything I said in my previous comment.
Until this cocks*cking, subhuman vermin and his vermin children are f*cking punished, I loves me some f*cking violent self-defense of the most brutal variety:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/machine-gun-toting-police-chief-says-viral-videos?ref=fpb
Where is the NSA while this filth threatens the lives of Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry. Why isn’t he arrested and executed like an al Qaeda terrorist?
How is this viral video any different that Osama bin Laden’s viral videos?
Come to think of it, why isn’t George Zimmerman on the this guy’s case?
The neighborhood is threatened. Murderous conservative cocks*ckers* — stupid murderous c*cksuckers run rampant through the land.
I suppose I should predict that the big honking weapon he’s waving around was paid for with a Federal Government grant to his Sheriff’s Department.
*If he would stick to mere c*cksucking, I’d support him, because I can sooner find c*cksucking in the Constitution (fourth comma, line 12), than I can his threats to public figures and “libtards”, not to mention his right to carry that piece of machinery around.
“I hear the same attitude expressed toward “renters”. In this area “renters” is code for Central American immigrants although it can also mean “white Trash”. (We don’t have eough AA’s around here for them to be a focus of negative assumptions so our county has to focus on someone else).”
Is it code or is that who rents? It is a pretty common challenge for homeowners to worry about the transition of a neighborhood from primarily owner occupied to largely rented. Most often for good reasons.
I quibble with this
Quibble away. It’s just common sense, McK.
Scratch everything I said in my previous comment.
Don’t let it get under your skin Count. The dude will have his 15 minutes, then it’s back to being police chief of Gilberton, PA, population 765.
Everybody looks more important on YouTube.
As a long time Atlanta resident I can attest to Laura’s description of white suburban attitudes about transit. I would be surprised if soon after moving to town she wasn’t told by a chuckling local that MARTA stands for “Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta.” Fortunately I haven’t heard it lately, but that’s partly the social circles I move in, though I’d like to think that people that might have said it in the past recognize that it’s socially unacceptable to be that overt.
“Most often for good reasons.”
I rent, after owning for 31 years.
You gotta problem wit dat, homey?
Maybe those folks who gave you the wide berth in Boston that night thought you were a renter.
Sorry, I’ve been watching the much criticized Michael Cimino western “Heaven’s Gate” (it has its qualities) wherein the state of Wyoming and the cattle barons compile a death list (not poisoning, not stabbing … shooting) of immigrant sod busters, and I’m conflating that dynamic with this new theme of the owners/renters and the old theme of Zimmerman/Martin, I guess because it always ends up with gunfire in our lovely, murderous culture.
“Judge a person by the content of their character, unless they are wearing a hoodie, or are renting without means or desire to own, or if they plow the land or set their teepees upon it.” (see footnotes for additional exceptions).
Martin Luther King, in his address to The Committee For An Accurate Reality, not realizing gun-lover James Earle Ray was the President pro tem.
I’ll bet I could post a video of myself on YouTube pumping lead into effigies of the Sheriff and his deputies and their aunties and it would suddenly become important, all the way to the House of Representatives.
We need more liberals posting videos like this on YouTube and showing up at Republican fetes armed to the teeth and maybe the Dixie Chicks could hack to pieces an effigy of Ted Nugent made from squirrel spare parts to pieces with machetes, on stage.
I predict things would get important real quick.
Gilberton, PA, eh.
Not too far from Pittsburgh. I’ll be there again soon tending to my mother.
It would be fun to hire some Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry dopplegangers, hell, let’s get Barack Obama into this, too, and show up at the Sheriff’s Office in Gilberton, spouting the language of armed self-defense (Pelosi could put her foot up on the Sheriff’s desk and expose the derringer hidden in her undercarriage) and, you know, see what happens.
The leakage in the Sheriff’s silk underthings alone would be worth the trouble.
Responsible conservative and libertarian gun owners of OBWI, this species of PR does your cause no good.
It would be like the Symbionese Liberation Army resuming operations on behalf of Obamacare.
Which I’m not ruling out.
My point in mentioning that was that both 1 and 2 have some contribution, but that I don’t know what the weights of each are. This is not meant as a quibble, but as a clarification.
A statement logically anded with its contradiction is false by definition.
Life can be consistent with some preconception one minute and contradict it the next, but that’s a different thing altogether.
And Austria gave us both Wittgenstein and Hitler.
Sometimesintelligence is not rooted to locale.I’ve seen the same opposition to public transit, even in towns that used to have public transit, back when America was all Leave It to Beaver. Criminals from the city will ride the rails to our nice, safe suburbs to do their crimes. Why anyone would take a friggin’ train, as opposed to a bus or car, is beyond me. And why all the nearby, more affluent towns that have had public transit for decades, going to the same scary places, don’t have these predicted problems is another mystery.
It’s not like we don’t have are own criminals in town already. If anything, these somewhat economically depressed places would be revitalized, property values would go up, more businesses would open, and crime would drop. Some of the “others” that are already here would probably get priced out, which would suck, especially for them. So the ones doing the othering aren’t even smart enough to be good at it, but that’s probably why they do it in the first place.
I mean, I’m not saying no one will ever ride the train to commit a crime. I just think that, one the whole, crime will drop, like it did along a similar line that was built a few years back, also going to the same scary places. Are train-riding criminals just a lot scarier than non-train-riding criminals?
Just keep the fares high enough, so the undesirables cannot afford the use (and employ enough cops to arrest all the fare dodgers).
Clearly, it would be more efficient and remunerative for the scary people to wait until the suburbanites board the trains en masse heading for the city and then rob the trains, going car to car and confiscating each person’s valuables.
I can’t think why MBAs at Goldman Sachs haven’t thought of this as a profit center too.
We need more liberals posting videos like this
I think this is a great idea, however I think we should arm ourselves with seltzer bottles and cream pies.
Sneak into the Nuge’s house and replace his arsenal with water pistols, pop guns, and a big rifle that shoots a flag that says ‘Boom!’.
Nothing wins hearts and minds like a good laugh. If they can’t take the joke, hit them with another pie.
I think what our friend the police chief of Gilberton PA really needs is a binky and a nap. Maybe a good set of restraints, too, but definitely a binky and a nap.
But then, I’m a Unitarian jihadi. Brother Neutron Bomb of Kindly Thoughts. More Wavy Gravy than John Wayne, if you get my drift.
Also, since no criminals own cars, or have the ability to steal them, so adding new highways and expanding existing ones are acceptable uses of transportation funds, not a nefarious plot to allow “the wrong element” access to suburban havens.
I am of course with you, Russell.
Taking the seltzer bottle from my cold dead hands would be a thankless task, but my thinking is changing on this on account of the distinct lack of a sense of humor among the armed conservative set these days, especially the elected officials among them.
I think you’d be just as likely to be shot down carrying seltzer bottles, binkies, a flower pinned to your lapel that squirts Koolaid, and Skittles as I would be carrying a 10-shot semi-automatic pistol, a pair of grenades and the entire unread 2500-page Obamacare Bill in these folks presence.
These are clowns of a different laugh track.
As I was saying:
It didn’t take long for the Gilberton, PA Sheriff to s*ck his own d*ick:
http://republicanherald.com/news/handgun-not-yet-recovered-in-girardville-bar-fight-investigation-1.1197433
Highlights:
The Gilberton police chief’s handgun that discharged during a scuffle in a borough bar early Sunday has yet to be recovered by state police.
Troopers are investigating an incident where Mark Kessler, who was off-duty at the time, became involved in an altercation already under way among patrons inside a crowded 2nd Street Pub about midnight when his pistol discharged, shooting him in the hand.
Sgt. Barry Whitmoyer, commander of the Frackville station, said Friday the weapon had not been accounted for and it is not known if the gun was fired intentionally or went off by accident.
“We don’t have the weapon and still have a lot of questions to answer,” Whitmoyer said. “At this point we really don’t know what we have.”
Barney, just gimme the gun.
And Gomer, take the barrel of that thing out of your mouth.
You beat all, ya know that?
As if in celebration, one of those Carolina states further loosened concealed carry laws to let righttards, libtards, and f*ckwads carry in bars and other establishments that serve alcohol, among other locales.
So why can’t I drink at the public library?
Or carry a full can of gasoline into church?
What were the other items that were just as hohum risky and accident-prone as guns, I forget?
I’m going to start a petition in my State that if a gun discharges for any reason anywhere outside the threat of imminent danger to the carrier, we send the owner to Texas for quick execution, since Governor Perry wants to steal the executioner jobs, too.
So why can’t I drink at the public library?
A good question.
My wife and I went with my brother in law and some friends to a ‘meet the author’ thing at our local library recently.
Red and white wine were served, along with some good French cheeses and some nice smoked salmon.
I love living in a coastal elitist enclave.
Well, Marty, as I said, I live in an enclave of retired middle to wealthy people who own their homes. Many have more than one home and rent out the one they are not currently living in. This is a source of controversy because some folks see renters as the source of all nuisance and a drag on their property values.
However, amongst our owners we have a gun nut who held up a medic vehicle because he thought he was about to be the target of a home invasion (iside a gated community!), an alcoholic who rolled his vehicle on one of our roads, a convicted sex offender who targetted little boys, and a bunch of teenagers who broke into houses to steal booze.
.
Outside the gates up the little dirt roads into the woods are plenty of shabby trailers and rundown houses rented out to poor people. Most of them are NOT drug dealers or meth manufacturers or puppy millers. Just people working at or near the minimum wage and trying to get by. Many of them are low income disabled people or elderly.
Up one of the dirt roads is an encampment of trucks and trailers. The campers rent from the landowner who is a millionaire. He inherited the land and the money from his mother. He is also a drug dealer; cars roar up and down his drive all night long. I know about him because I got a neglected dog off the property. Years have been spent trying to dislodge him but he owns the land and has money for lawyers.
I don’t know that renters behave any better or worse than owners, but they are easier to get rid of.
Renters are a mixed bag; I’ve been renting since I had to move to SC to find work, and my neighbors are fine folk, but part of the reason I’m still renting is the bastards who were renting MY house back in Michigan trashed it and skipped town. A week before I was going to close on a house here based on the rental income. Had to save up a down payment all over again, after spending it fixing the house, but I had time thanks to the short sale making it impossible for me to qualify for a mortgage for several years.
Renters are a mixed bag, but every group is a mixed bag.
“As if in celebration, one of those Carolina states further loosened concealed carry laws to let righttards, libtards, and f*ckwads carry in bars and other establishments that serve alcohol, among other locales.”
Because, you know, just because you enter a restaurant with a liquor license, or stop at a bar to use the rest room, doesn’t mean you’re going to end up drunk. Or even drink.
But I guess that doesn’t matter when you’re just looking for excuses to disarm people.
Here’s my proposal:
If you get in an argument or a fight at a bar and end up shooting yourself in the hand, then lose the firearm, you forfeit your right to concealed carry.
How’s that Brett?
just because you enter a restaurant with a liquor license, or stop at a bar to use the rest room, doesn’t mean you’re going to end up drunk. Or even drink.
Ahh. A innocent guy who just happens to be packing heat ends up in a bar to take a wizz and BAM! BAM! Brett, you really need to get something other than those 70’s Charles Bronson flicks on your Netflix queue.
Seems a little inadequate to me, Russell. How about, you get in a fight ANYWHERE, and end up firing your gun in a manner found to be unjustified, and you lose the permit? Wrongful shooting, unjustified discharge, accident, you name it.
I’m just pointing out that the fact a place serves liquor, O’Charlie’s, for instance, doesn’t imply that everyone there is drinking. Why should you have to avoid O’Charlie’s if you’re carrying concealed, if you’re not going to drink any of the booze on their menu?
A lot of this has no purpose but to inconvenience people.
How about, you get in a fight ANYWHERE, and end up firing your gun in a manner found to be unjustified, and you lose the permit?
Works for me. Eminently sensible. Thank you.
Why should you have to avoid O’Charlie’s if you’re carrying concealed, if you’re not going to drink any of the booze on their menu?
I believe the train of thought goes as follows:
1. In places that serve booze, many people will drink
2. Drinking often impairs people’s judgement and may also make some folks belligerent
3. That, plus guns, raises the risk of a problem
4. It’s impractical to vet the general population to discover, ahead of time, who is likely to drink to the point of behaving irresponsibly
So, to simplify matters, you might choose to simply not allow firearms in places that serve booze.
You are correct, this inconveniences responsible non-drinkers who carry a firearm, and who might like to go to O’Charlies.
Sometimes, or in fact quite often, its necessary or at least helpful for some folks to be inconvenienced in the interest of folks in general.
It can, in fact, suck, but it’s a part of life, public life at least.
I’m not disputing your basic point, IMO it is correct. I just think that it’s an example of a situation where some folks are inconvenienced in the interest of broader public safety.
I don’t think the purpose is specifically to inconvenience people, the purpose (in this case) seems, to me, to be to lower the risk of irresponsible firearm use, in a way that is doable, as a simple practical matter.
The broad brush ends up painting everyone, which is not really fair, but at least the paint gets applied, which is arguably a good thing. Life is full of stuff like this.
These things are never 100% good or 100% bad, they’re a compromise. Living with other people is the art of compromise.
In practical terms, unless someone is going to search you, if you need to take a wiz, for example, you can walk into O’Charlie’s with your concealed weapon, take your wiz and leave, and no one’s the wiser (though someone’s the wizzer).
I speed daily, but haven’t gotten a ticket in years.
Sometimes laws that disallow things only matter when someone violates them in stupid, excessive or overt ways. That would likely be the practical effect of banning concealed weapons in places that sell booze. Someone might have the dumb luck of somehow getting caught with their little friend while causing no trouble whatsoever in a calm place that happens to sell liquor, I guess, and lose their permit. And I might get a speeding ticket. I can live with both of those things.
The thing is, whether or not you are going to drink, there are places where the other people who are drinking are likely to start some crap. I’ve been in those places. I don’t start anything with people, but I’ve still had people start stuff with me. If you want to carry a gun concealed on your person, it would be a lot better for everyone if you didn’t go to those kinds of places. (I’ll even put aside the very small minority of people who might go to places just hoping someone starts some crap so they can legally shot some a-hole.)
Not only can’t the law differentiate ahead of time who is or is not going to drink, it can’t differentiate which places are the ones where trouble is going to start, at least not much beyond *places that sell booze.*
I have a really hard time imagining just how inconvenient it would be for someone to avoid the intersection of: 1. carrying a concealed weapon, and 2. going to a place that sells booze. Claiming this as a non-starter sounds like “I want what I want, just because, and I don’t care. Whaah!”
Even in Texas you can’t carry in a bar. There is some grey area around restaurants that sell liquor. Booze and guns don’t mix.
Booze and guns don’t mix.
Oh, the inconvenience!
(btw, Marty, welcome to the big liberal conspiracy of where we want to deprive everyone of their guns. Welcome to the dark side!!!)
Does food mix with guns?
Toiletries?
Automobiles?
Gardening supplies?
Accounting?
Adult accessories?
Bond trading?
Massage therapy?
Dentistry?
Pet Supplies?
Marijuana Dispensaries?
Elementary School Education? Which apparently doesn’t mix with bars and marijuana dispensaries.
Courtrooms?
Sporting Events?
May I drink openly, carrying my own, at gun shows?
How bout down at the local gun store?
Prison, where self defense goes to live?
If I ever start a band, my debut album will be called “Even in Texas…” (And my second will be “Odd in Texas.” Oh, the numerical irony!)
“So, to simplify matters, you might choose to simply not allow firearms in places that serve booze.”
Because Olive Garden is notorious for all the fights breaking out, and we don’t want to throw gasoline on the fire. Gotcha.
“I don’t think the purpose is specifically to inconvenience people, the purpose (in this case) seems, to me, to be to lower the risk of irresponsible firearm use, in a way that is doable, as a simple practical matter.”
I think we’re going to disagree about that. There are a lot of people in politics who, not so many years ago, would openly advocate the destruction of the right to own guns. Who viewed, and would admit to viewing, any imposition at all on gun owners as simply an incremental step in that direction.
Then gun owners organized politically. We demonstrated that messing with us was, across most of the nation, a good way to end your political career. That openly opposing the right to keep and bear arms was political suicide.
Now the same people, the very same people, are pursing laws supposedly meant to reasonably regulate firearms, and the imposition on gun owners is, so we are told, merely a regrettable consequence of laws intended to protect public safety. But not, they will swear, intended as a back door approach to incrementally rolling back the right they now support.
I really hate being taken for a fool.
Tell you what: Concealed carry laws differ from state to state, and this restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol differs, too. So, if drunken gunfights in O’Charlies is really a genuine problem, you should be able to show it.
So, show it, or get out of our faces.
Concealed carry laws differ from state to state, and this restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol differs, too.
So, do you have a problem with Texas’ laws as Marty mentioned? What about states that are even more restrictive?
Because Olive Garden is notorious for all the fights breaking out
Then not allowing licensed carriers to bring their weapon into the Olive Garden might well be unnecessary, and an overreach.
It depends on what the actual reality of the situation is.
I think we’re going to disagree about that.
I’m sure that’s so. That’s OK with me.
Concealed carry laws differ from state to state, and this restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol differs, too.
This is also OK with me, personally. What makes sense in some places doesn’t make sense in others.
That said, I’m also fine with federal bans on stuff like, frex, fully automatic weapons.
What I’m really, really in favor of is common sense.
So, show it, or get out of our faces.
‘Getting in faces’ goes in more than one direction.
Not trying to pick a fight, just pointing out the obvious.
Where I live, frex, a local police chief can say “sorry, that guy doesn’t get a gun, because I know him and we get five calls a month about him getting into big, unnecessary arguments with everybody in town”.
Even if Mr. Sorehead is otherwise perfectly qualified to own and carry a firearm.
Police chief says no, then it’s no gun for you. If you think it’s unfair, and the police chief is just picking on you because you dated his sister and dumped her for some cheap floozy, there’s an appeal process available.
IMO, all of that is perfectly splendid.
Folks in other places (and, in fact, here) often cite this as a violation of constitutional rights, and an overreach of the regulatory state.
IMO those folks should go live somewhere else if it’s that important to them (if they don’t already), because the law as it stands suits me, and most folks here in MA, just fine.
If you don’t want a law like that in TX or FL or MI or wherever, I’m fine with that. Do as you wish.
But get and stay out of our faces.
I’d like to know why a person would want to carry a gun, assuming the gun is not part of a job.
Self-defense rarely works as a reality based logical reason: the violent crime rate in this country ahs been dropping for decades and most localities are safe. Of course there are specific locations and specific times of day and so on that would make it logical for a person to fear attack and need self-defense, but it is rare.
Also some people carry because they might feel the need to shoot a rattlesnake or some other dangerous creature. That too is a pretty situation-specific reason for carrying.
So, assuming that the person who wishes to carry a gun is not a corner boy in a bad neighborhood in Baltimore or a rancher in eastern Montana, what is the reason for carrying?
I’m really asking, BTW. I used to have a gun and a concealled weapons permit and i took a class. I threw my gun off a bridge into deep water when I realized that i did not need it.
Then not allowing licensed carriers to bring their weapon into the Olive Garden might well be unnecessary, and an overreach.
As might bringing a (loaded?) weapon to Olive Garden (straight-up OG).
“Because Olive Garden is notorious for all the fights breaking out”
Well, since the “excuse” for concealed carry is the ostensible, usually without any direct, prior personal experience, need for self defense against violence, we don’t need to carry in the Olive Garden, either, do we.
Unless we think a cut-rate Michael Corleone may have a pistol hidden in the men’s room to take care of business.
Now, Macaroni Grill might be a totally different story, because the food is better there and the clientele more discriminating, which could lead one to believe a few of them might have legitimate sidelines in the waste disposal business.
I suppose we should permit concealed carry while commenting at Obsidian Wings because some guy at another table might take exception to the drift of the conversation and start telling you to “get outta my face.”
In fact, the implication by some gun aficionadoes that curtailing concealed carry or imposing other gun restrictions is “messing with” and “getting in our faces” sounds awfully Trayvonish to me, given some narratives, and may require the f*cking safety off by those who it is said to, given the ample evidence that the ones who utter these statements are probably armed and eagerly precipitant in their actions.
I worked at a bar where we had a regular who, after arriving on his motorcycle, would meet up with the manager and they would walk back to the liquor cage and store his gun in that locked area.
I particularly appreciated knowing the gun was out of reach the time I was shoved into some tables after trying to interpose myself between that regular and another customer who were having a drunk, stupid confrontation.
Don’t you get it, Brett? Gun “rights” are irrelevant. You will never never get it up to take on the state. However many Edward Snowdons come forward to spill horrible details of online surveillance, the FBI turning on your cell phone and using it as a baby monitor, you still won’t pull it together to do what your ancestors did at Lexington with far less provocation. And the authorities know that. Why do you think they let you have your little collection? Because they know your guns won’t ever be used effectively against them, because they know you’ve divided yourselves and frightened yourselves.
So when some snitch with scabs on his arms and eyes pleading for just one more fix tells the drug police you have a stash of cocaine or meth or pot that you sell out the back door, some judge will likely as not rubber stamp the no-knock warrant. And the cops will show up with an arsenal and an armoured vehicle. And from then on, your guns don’t matter. You will, likely as not, have any pets in your home casually slaughtered. Because we have to show those thugs (in hoodies) what’s what. You will have your family terrorized. And you will end up flat on the ground with a trooper’s boot on your neck. You may or may not be a corpse. You may or may not have used your guns to defend yourself (if so, you will be facing murder or attempted murder charges regardless of the circumstances). But the ending will be the same. Their boot on your neck.
And there’s a way better than even chance that whatever happens, the courts will give you no satisfaction. Civil courts may dismiss your lawsuit, because if we don’t uphold our gallant heroes in blue, who will protect us from the thugs? (in hoodies). If you defended yourself with your guns, the courts will probably convict you, however outrageous the police behaviour. Because, well, thugs, Brett. (in hoodies). If an officer died, they may even sentence you to death, depending on the jurisdiction.
But one thing that will not happen, or has at least never yet happened: your neighbours will not arise at the ballot box and vote out the twerps who allowed this travesty. Because, well, Brett, thugs with hoodies frighten them into abandoning their sense of justice. As we have seen, your country has a pretty bad case of that.
To paraphrase MASH, two rules apply here. Rule number one: frightened people are not free people, Brett. Rule number two: owning guns doesn’t change rule number one.
I don’t have a gun. The laws of my country make if difficult for me to acquire one, and they absolutely prohibit me from carrying a gun for self defence outside my home. But I also live in a country, Brett, where the courts will routinely trash a charge if they believe the police brought it to punish disrespect of the police (so-called “contempt of cop”). I live in a country where the legislature is afraid to pass certain laws because juries have persistently nullified them in the past.
I don’t have a gun, Brett, but I do live in a community where I have a good change my fellow citizens and the courts that represent us will rally to protect my right, to protect anybody’s rights. And frankly, I think that makes me more free than you.
I suppose one could make the case that concealed carry would be prudent on a red sauce joint and can be safely disallowed in a white sauce joint.
Depending on whether one is expecting fights to break out or not, which for concealed carry fantasists seems to be distinction without a difference, since both have facilities in which to pee.
I’ve always wondered why gun folks conceal carry at gun shows. I thought the presence of so many guns arrayed on tables and in cases would encourage a polite society, so why the need to carry as well.
What are they expecting to happen?
Maybe it’s the peacock effect.
Priest: So when the “festivities” were ostensibly over and both parties were headed for the parking lot, I guess the manager unlocked the cage and returned the gun to the now drunk and pissed off patron?
Just curious about how that worked.
I think a gun lockup is just fine. You don’t drink and/or dine unless your gun is locked up. It’s purely voluntary. If Brett doesn’t like having to surrender his carry weapon, he can always order at the drive-through.
Back in Wild West days it was common for people to turn in their guns either with a saloon keeper or with the sheriff when they got to town. Then they could drink and fight all they wanted.
Guns are not something that every idiot should have access to. I don’t know why there is this hyserical repsonse to any kind of safety measures to prevent the rest of us from being accidently or negligently shot by someone who can’t behave responsibly with a gun. The NRA used to be a responsible organization that supported a variety of public safety restrictions on use of guns, but now it is an extremist organization run mostly to promote paranoia on behalf of gun manufacturers to dupe idiots into stockpiling weapons and ammo.
And yes I know many gun owners are responsible. I’m not saying otherwise. I am saying that gun ownership is a serious responsiblity and many people (like ZImmerman) think of themsleves are repsonible owners, but aren’t. Or my idiot neighbor who actually ran out of his houise one night and HELD UP THE MEDICS WHO WERE TRYING TO FIND THE HOME OF A MAN WHO WAS HAVING A HEART ATTACK for Chrissake because he thought the home invasion he’s been livig iin fear of all these years had finally happened. What an asshole! But, boy, if you talk guns to him he’s all about his rights and defending his home and the latest scary story he read in his NRC mag.
A subset of current gun owners are idiots. The more people who carry guns around, the bigger the subset of idiots will be unless we change the social and legal norms to make gun ownership at least as serious a responsiblity as car ownership.
I’m just saying, demonstrate a problem before setting out to solve it. Remember, concealed carry reform itself was opposed on the basis of “blood running in the streets”, shootouts breaking out at fender benders, so the track record of CCW opponents in predicting problems is not terribly good.
We’re going to keep rolling back restrictions until you can actually demonstrate a problem. Not just predict one. Because you don’t restrict people just because, you need a good reason to impose restrictions.
Not a principle you expect modern ‘liberals’ to understand, regrettably. Why DO you insist on using a name derived from “liberty”? Just so no movement that actually deserved it would have it’s use?
I’m just saying, demonstrate a problem before setting out to solve it.
a little bird just whispered “voter fraud”
Count, it’s been almost 20 years since the incident, so it’s possible that “Phil” didn’t bring his gun in at all on that particular night (but if he did I had the peace of mind knowing that it was locked up); my guess would be that he was sent on his way and had to come pick it up the next day when the booze (and possibly coke) were mostly out of his system.
We’re going to keep rolling back restrictions until you can actually demonstrate a problem. Not just predict one.
Here’s a demonstration, and it’s even on topic: if George Zimmerman had a duty to retreat, Martin might still be alive today. Yes, that means if you’re frightened of n^%%#$s you can’t just shoot them, but many of us do consider that status quo a problem. You clearly consider Martin’s death to be a social good, so we’re not likely to agree on this point.
Here’s another: many red state GOPs have (despite their nominal fealty to property rights and employer rights) required employers to allow employees to bring guns to work. In some states employers can’t even ask if the employee has brought a gun.
So they ought to be able to discriminate by race, age, or gender. They ought to be able to proselytize to their employees. They ought to have no minimum wage or OSHA or USDA interfering in their operations.
But they for damn sure can’t stop people from bringing guns to work. *That* is the sort of interference in employer-employee relations that is obviously mandated by the Constitution.
Really, if the NRA and gun rights ‘enthusiasts’ were interested in protecting gun rights, they’d be trying to lock in some kind of consensus position rather than pushing extreme (to the point of self-parody) laws and positions. But for many it’s not really about guns at all I think, gun rights are used as a wedge issue (an thus are never allowed to be settled). Gun rights are in service of partisan politics, rather than using politics to secure gun rights.
Of course, leaving them in flux in this manner leaves them much more open to rollback later, when the GOP’s star wanes. Which means they get to be a wedge issue forever…
Thus, we don’t see Brett articulate some sort of position on guns, he says ‘we are just going to keep pushing’. (I mean, he might *now*, but let’s not mistake that cover for the agenda itself).
[Ironically, this is exactly the philosophy attributed by GOPers to liberals over issues such as gay rights- we’ll not stop with gay marriage or equal rights for gays, soon it’ll be compulsory homosexual experiences in school to help break down heteronormative social structures. Ah, sweet projection.]
Not a principle you expect modern ‘liberals’ to understand, regrettably. Why DO you insist on using a name derived from “liberty”? Just so no movement that actually deserved it would have it’s use?
Stuff like this really makes me think you’re here for reasoned debate and not to go through some preprogrammed motions so you can pat yourself on the back for being reasonable enough to even talk with such repressive people. It makes me think you’re carefully considering and responding to the widely varied positions taken by the moderates and liberals here rather than spewing dogmatic scripts that often aren’t even responsive to the points being made.
I’m just saying, demonstrate a problem before setting out to solve it.
So, what do you think of the law in Texas as Marty mentioned?
And another thing! We’re writing comments on a blog, which is a rather “academic” exercise. I’m not sure anyone is setting out to do much of anything.
So, what I think people might be suggesting is that they would support restrictions on concealed carry permits should there be a common sense need for such. Maybe it’s not a problem, in which case, it’s a moot point. It’s certainly not something that’s ever come into play in my life.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting your position, Brett, which seems to be something like “I have rights. Nothing else matters.”
Not a principle you expect modern ‘liberals’ to understand, regrettably
The first law against carrying a firearm in public that I’m aware of was California’s Mulford Act, 1967.
Ronald Reagan signed it.
It was inspired by the phenomenon of the Black Panther Patrols, and its passage was insured by the sight of black men carrying loaded weapons into the CA state house.
Everybody has their own understanding of when a problem has been demonstrated.
Let’s pretend for a moment that the Constitution read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to transportation, shall not be infringed.”
For many years it was recognized that this right, like all rights (especially since this one has a restrictive context or purpose) was not unlimited. It was understood that there was a time and place for riding a horse and that one should know something about safe riding praortices. When cars were invented, it was understood that they were considerably more dangerous than horses and that the right to drive one came with qualifications. It was understood that some forms of transportation–NASCAR vehicles, for example, and tanks–were not appropriate for everyday use by just anybody anywhere.
The the AAA, working inconjuction with the automanufacturers and the Democratic party, decided to create the utterly false issue of “They are trying to take away the right to drive your car!”. Well funded organizations sent out lies and disinformation to voters to distort discussion of the car safety issue so that the issue could be a wedge for the Deomcrats and to frighten people inot buying more cars than they needed or types of vehicles they had no real use for.
Commonsense requirements such as a license, classes on car driving, removal of licenses from people who drove drunk, restriction of licenses from people who are blind were taken away as interference withthe right to drive. AAA extremists promoted the driving of Indy 500-type vehicles on city streets as necessary for safe transportation. AAA extremists demaded the right to drive army tanks to work, even to elemenatry schools.
Of course there were accidents. A crazy man ran over a schoolyard full of children while driving his tank. (He had legal ownership of the tank under state law promoted by the Democrats and the AAA).
Everytime someone killed a bunch of people by speeding with their race car or their tank, the AAA would respond by claiming that more race cars and more tanks would make for a more polite society.
Oddly when Zimmerman ran over Trayvon with his tank, the AAA did not suggest that all African American teenagers should get better transportation for themselves.
In fact when the AAA advocates for more bigger faster transportation is usually has a subtext of protecting AAA members from that scary mean ol’ world out there that is out to get them, a mean ol’ world full of black teenagers.
But, paralyzed by the dishonesty, cynical maipulation and hysterical nonsense of the AAA and the party it worked for, the restt of us got run over more and more frequently.
But we shouldn’t talk about putting restrictions back on until we know for sure there’s a problem or we are against liberty.
Brett, what do your guns have to do with liberty? Seriously, what?
Well, you might want to shoot the guy who put all the salt in the food at the Olive Garden. (Is it just me? I only go there because the in-laws give us gift cards for whatever reason. I always leave feeling like I just drank the Atlantic Ocean.)
Seriously, though, 2nd amendment, John Spragge. You can’t question what liberty is once it’s been codified.
Actually, Laura’s AAA analogy, with certain adjustments, doesn’t seem that far off reality. God forbid the local DOT put in an extra stop sign/light somewhere, or promote mass transit, or construct (gasp!) sidewalks. Communists!
This is one of the reasons I’ve stopped reading my neighborhood list-serve (he says, to no one in particular).
Veering back to the original topic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/25/juror_b29_mandy_zimmerman_juror_tells_abc_that_george_zimmerman_got_away.html
So at least one of the jurors that voted for acquittal does not equate that with Martin being a thug. Another close-minded liberal, I guess.
Why DO you insist on using a name derived from “liberty”?
Sigh. ‘liberal’ is not ‘derived’ from ‘liberty’. link
With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.
Whenever Brett cites etymologies, it means he’s down to the last spear for his atlatl.
Ah, so basically your position is that you’ve reclaimed the word from those who misappropriated for so many centuries, and are restoring the former meaning which didn’t actually imply any devotion to freedom.
Ok, technically both “liberty” and “liberal” derive from a common latin root which meant “free”.
So, then, why does a party which has so little interest in freedom, insist on using a word whose original root means “free”? That better?
My position is that liberal doesn’t derive from liberty. Of course you acknowledge that when you say
Ok, technically both “liberty” and “liberal” derive from a common latin root which meant “free”.
But the idea that “liberal derives from liberty” is just too clever not to use, even if it is wrong. Kinda like your arguments in this thread.
Here’s a guy who knows the meaning of the word “tolerant” and why it’s dangerous for conservatives to use it — because it might mean “liberal”.
http://aattp.org/reince-priebus-doesnt-want-the-gop-to-be-tolerant/
Cue Brett to tell us that ‘tolerant’ derives from ‘toll’, so it means that the Democrats want to tax everyone because toleration is like charging everyone a toll. Like laws that make Olive Garden and bar bathrooms off limits for everyone (legally mind you!) packing heat.
While we are at it, ‘tolerant’ is not a positive word either when we look at its origins. Old definitions see it as ‘suffering the wrong opinions of others to coexist with your own correct ones’ with a strong implication that this your noble suffering of the wrongness of others is just a tool to with time make the other see the wrongness of his ways and convert to your standpoint. The same verb ‘tolerare’ would be used for the ability to withstand torture (suffer through without breaking). The biblical Job was ‘tolerant’ too not because he endured listening to his ‘friends’ but because he did not complain about the unjust punishments he received.
The definition of ‘considering the opinions of others as equal in value to your own’ or ‘accepting the otherness of others as legitimate’ is new.
Yes, I guess the slaves were “tolerant” of their suffering.
Lucky for the United States, considering what should have happened.
I was reading just yesterday that conservative 19th century European clergy preached that women in childbirth should be “tolerant” of the suffering and pain of childbirth and argued that anesthesia was a frustration of God’s design.
Conservative older doctors resisted change by refusing to introduce anesthesia in their surgery practices, believing the exorbitant pain was a necessary evil to be “tolerated”.
Conservative Dick Cheney thought the terror of water boarding should be tolerated and the torturers tolerated by their torturers.
I thought George Zimmerman should have tolerated a little bit of a whipping without hauling off and shooting Martin, so I guess that makes me a conservative.
A little suffering never hurt no one no how and neither does a whole lot of suffering.
For others, not me.
I believe in the prosperity Gospel.
“We’re going to keep rolling back restrictions until you can actually demonstrate a problem. Not just predict one.”
What is the problem demonstrated to justify the rash of concealed carry laws and other relaxations of restrictions on firearms across the country?
What do you predict would happen to you if you took an unarmed piss in a restaurant?
These subhuman vermin, the entire sadistic edifice of the Republican Party, should no longer tolerated in a civilized, civil society:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/25/vandals-and-saboteurs-ctd-3/
Saying that “liberal” derives from “liberty” because they have a common root is the same kind of mistake as saying that we are descended from monkeys because we have a common ancestor.
hairshirthedonist
I should point out that I didn’t ask what guns have to do with freedom: any one gun may have a negative, positive, or negligible affect on freedom, depending on who carries it and why. North Korean soldiers have guns, but I doubt any of us would say that makes them free. I asked Brett, specifically, what his guns have to do with freedom, because to the extent that anyone lets fear rule them, that person is not free, and a forged steel appliance will not change that.
“What is the problem demonstrated to justify the rash of concealed carry laws and other relaxations of restrictions on firearms across the country?”
The problem is people not being permitted to do what they want, which is properly the default in a free society. You let people do what they want unless you’ve got a genuinely good reason to forbid it, rather than requiring them to demonstrate a good reason before they can do it.
And based on the results, you never had a good reason for prohibiting it.
And based on the results, you never had a good reason for prohibiting it.
I imagine there is room for disagreement here. What results are you referring to? Prohibiting what, exactly?
You let people do what they want unless you’ve got a genuinely good reason to forbid it, rather than requiring them to demonstrate a good reason before they can do it.
I agree, but…
What a genuinely good reason is might be the crux of the problem. Some things are inherently dangerous. Do you let people do something that you can reasonably assume will result in harm to others until that harm occurs, only then to restrict that thing based on those results? Do you also weight the benefits of allowing people to do something that might be dangerous? What if there’s very little to be gained? What if it’s something silly that one can easily live a rich, fulfilling life without, like, say, packing heat at the Olive Garden?
you’ve reclaimed the word from those who misappropriated for so many centuries, and are restoring the former meaning which didn’t actually imply any devotion to freedom.
I suspect that any and everyone on this board who identifies as ‘liberal’ does so using that word exactly as they found it, nestled firmly in the usus loquendi.
You’re imputing a sh*tload of intent and agency here that is not in evidence.
For crap’s sake, give it a rest already.
The problem is people not being permitted to do what they want
I’m sorry to be the one that brings you this sad news, Brett, but people can’t actually do any and everything they want.
There are too freaking many other people in the world for that to be a practical way to live.
Find yourself an un- or under-populated area, go there, and live off the grid. Grow or hunt your own food, pump your own water, chop your own firewood, make your own clothes (including the cloth and leather they’re made from), and live your libertarian dream.
I know people that live in some close approximation to that. It’s a lot of work, but it’s what they want to do, so they got up off of their @sses and went and did it.
If you want to live around other people, and participate in common public life, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
That’s just the way it is.
Folks here have articulated a number of reasons why it might not be such a great idea to let people carry guns into places that serve alcohol.
You don’t like those reasons. So be it. But those reasons exist.
If it bugs you, go live in the woods. Other people do, you could, too. You’ll just have to be willing to work your @ss off to make a go of it.
Jeez Louise.
You let people do what they want unless you’ve got a genuinely good reason to forbid it
30,000 dead from gunshot last year, in the US.
there’s your fncking good reason.
But, cleek, if those 30,000 people had guns, they’d be alive today. Well, except for the ones who did have guns and used them on themselves. But the rest of them could have shot the person who shot them, so you’d have a much better set of dead people, right? And, besides, everybody dies from something sooner or later, so what’s the difference? I’d rather be shot than run over by an SUV, ferchrisakes.
I guess what I’m saying is, I really don’t want people coming to Olive Garden with SUVs holstered under their sports coats. If the salt doesn’t kill me, I want it to be a bullet.
This from Joy-Ann Reid, former Miami Herald reporter and analyst for MSNBC:
“But right now, I’m giving Florida a rest. I’m not joining a mass boycott, just a personal one. And it’s not because I simply don’t like the outcome of a particular second-degree murder trial… I’m quitting Florida tourism for now, because my conscience won’t let me travel to a state that I love, but where it’s not safe for my sons to walk the streets…
In Florida, and 22 other states with similar laws, but particularly in Florida because of how Stand Your Ground was written, anyone who finds you threatening has a license to shoot you, based solely on the perception in their mind that you were threatening to hurt them. You don’t even have to actually hurt them. As long as a jury of as few as six people believe it was reasonable for them to fear you, they will walk…
Since the law passed, the number of “justifiable homicides” in Florida has tripled, and the number of concealed-carry permits has ballooned to 1.5 million people. That’s one in 17 adults. Police organizations vociferously opposed the law, but their voices were nothing compared with Pistol-Packing Marion [Hammer, NRA lobbyist] and her bottomless pocket full of ideas for laws that make carrying guns less legally risky for gun owners, and more risky for anyone unfortunate enough to freak them out…
”
Way up thread someone said that the Zimmerman rial wasn’t about “stand your ground”–but it was. And the lesson –that in Florida, if you are the right color, you now have a license to shoot people–is literally accurate, with only one qualifier: you might have a license to shoot people if you are the wrong color, too. Maybe.
“Saying that “liberal” derives from “liberty” because they have a common root is the same kind of mistake as saying that we are descended from monkeys because we have a common ancestor.”
and
“The problem is people not being permitted to do what they want, which is properly the default in a free society. You let people do what they want unless you’ve got a genuinely good reason to forbid it, rather than requiring them to demonstrate a good reason before they can do it.”
I wonder if we might have an intersection here of blocks of voters in North Carolina and Texas, among other locales, being prevented —- by monkeys with whom I don’t share a common ancestry —- to vote when, where, and how they want and being required to demonstrate a good reason before they do it, AND the justifiable use of deadly weapons.
I’m hoping for rain tonight so that I can take a rambling walk on the city sidewalks after dark while wearing my hoodie.
I hope no one finds it suspicious that I am doing what I want to do.
That could lead to trouble.
What is the etiquette if you are a left-handed guy, and also carrying a concealed weapon, who is dining at the Olive Garden and you excuse yourself from the table because your blood pressure spiked on account of the bowl of double-strength saline solution — they call it minestrone — you just consumed, and doing a Dick Van Dyke avoidance skip around one of the saltlicks the size of ottomans placed at intervals throughout the dining room, you rise to take a leak and as you are heading for the men’s room, you notice another guy who has entered the joint only to use the restroom and you further notice a suspicious, telltale bulge on this other guy’s backside, just at the waist, and the two of you converge at the urinals, unzip side by side (he, to your right, and actually, he un-rips an elaborate superstructure of reinforced sansabelt straps secured by velcro) to water the urinal cake of liberty, and the other guy starts shooting suspicious glances at your gun and making smart remarks about caliber (why are you carrying that derringer instead of the heavy artillery he’s packing, etc), make, and whether you have any bullets left in the chamber after last night, and then heated words ensue and he drops his gun and reaches around looking like he’s going for the weapon outlined under the back of his shirt — do you drop your gun with your left hand — transferring those duties to the right hand — so that can deploy the left hand on which your trigger finger resides — and do your own reverse reach-around and draw your weapon to counter the party of the first part’s action?
Or do wish you had three hands like Trayvon Martin apparently did.
That part cracked me up more than usual.
Here’s the link:http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/24/3519323/joy-ann-reid-no-florida-trip-for.html#
Ok, technically both “liberty” and “liberal” derive from a common latin root which meant “free”.
You may want to avoid basing your ideology on etymology:
from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (cf. Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure) cite
‘belonging to the people’ indeed, Mr.Commie-Pants
So, then, why does a party which has so little interest in freedom, insist on using a word whose original root means “free”? That better?
Surely you’ve talked with enough liberals by now to know that most would not describe themselves as having little interest in freedom. That many would, in fact, describe proto-facsism and corporate Republicanism as opposed to freedom.
I understand that you don’t *agree* with those positions, but you surely know that they exist.
So your question, such as it is, seems designed to produce zero useful discussion- it starts with assumptions that you know the people you’re ostensibly trying to talk to don’t share.
I guess you’re just feeling some butthurt from the thread (eg we never did learn how the location of Zimmerman’s body made you more certain (if such a thing were possible!) that Martin attacked Zimmerman) and want to start a fact- and tact-free brawl that will at least give you some debate where you aren’t punching far above your weight.
[…]
This narrative has transformed Zimmerman, a man of racially mixed heritage that included white, Hispanic and black roots (a grandmother who helped raise him had an Afro-Peruvian father), into an honorary white male steeped in white privilege. It has cast him as a virulent racist even though he once had a black business partner, mentored African-American kids, lived in a neighborhood about 20 percent black, and participated in complaints about a white police lieutenant’s son getting away with beating a homeless black man.
This narrative has perpetuated the lie that Zimmerman’s history of calls to the police indicates obsessive racial paranoia. Thus, discussing the verdict on the PBS NewsHour, University of Connecticut professor and New Yorker contributor Jelani Cobb asserted that “Zimmerman had called the police 46 times in previous six years, only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.” Actually, prior to the call about Martin, only four of Zimmerman’s calls had to do with African-American men or teenage boys (and two of them were about individuals who Zimmerman thought matched the specific description of burglary suspects). Five involved complaints about whites, and one about two Hispanics and a white male; others were about such issues as a fire alarm going off, a reckless driver of unknown race, or an aggressive dog.
[…]
Zimmerman Backlash Continues Thanks to Media Misinformation
the idea that people’s dislike of Zimmerman has fuck-all to do with the number of times he called the police or what he called them about is utterly asinine.
the idea that people’s dislike of Zimmerman has fuck-all to do with the number of times he called the police or what he called them about is utterly asinine.
I haven’t read every single detail about Zimmerman, or about the case. I don’t dislike anyone (although from what I have read, I think that Zimmerman thought he was entitled to be a vigilante, when he was merely a neighborhood watch person who should have (if he was so freaked out by Trevon’s Skittle carrying) called 911 and then gone home, and then maybe followed up.)
What’s frightening to me is that people can carry a gun around, trying to do “the right thing” whatever that is in their own warped mind, and somebody gets killed (probably because the shooting victim doesn’t “look like” he “belongs” where he happens to be). All kinds of crazy cultural crap is wrapped up in whatever Zimmerman thought and did, (and who knows about young Martin – can’t get his side of the story).
But laws allowing people to run around with guns are stupid and wrong. Lots of people have questionable judgment. Zimmerman was on a mission (which he thought was all good), but if he hadn’t had a gun, he might have waited for the cops.
It’s the gun laws, folks: the concealed carry law, and the stand your ground law. We do not need civilians to be carrying guns around all of the time. Nowhere, no how. If we live in a place without adequate police, we need to fund the police force.
I’m not even going to answer Brett if he comments on this comment – we’re in different worlds here.
That’s for sure. I’m just glad you don’t have the political support to drag me into yours.
So, that it keeps getting brought up as a support for Zimmerman’s edgy, vigilante personality is something you think of as asinine?
Absolutely, people should not be allowed to do things that frighten you. Because that would be frightening, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
Absolutely, people should not be allowed to do things that frighten you. Because that would be frightening, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
That’s a good point. I guess there’s no legal bar to me building and selling my own anti-aircraft missiles. I mean, surely everyone in the country should have the ability to shoot down 747s, since they are often noisy.
What (some) people’s dislike about Zimmerman has to do with, is that he was cast as the bad guy in a morality story designed to drum up outrage about “Stand your ground” laws. The media had an omelet to make, and Zimmerman was the appointed egg. Nothing personal about the ensuing smear job.
You’d think this guy was the second coming of Don Knots mixed with Bull Connor. But that’s what you were intended to think, just as you were intended to think Martin was an angelic 12 year old.
If it weren’t for the internet denying the MSM the ability to completely control the story, we wouldn’t even know he was being railroaded.
Except for that they’re already illegal, you are correct.
Bonus alternate reason: all the good outdoor missile firing ranges are already taken.
Nah, there’s a number of nice ranges where they’ll let you test that sort of thing, as long as you leave out the high explosive payload. And supply your own target of course…
Except for that they’re already illegal, you are correct.
Bah! An unconstitutional technicality! One rightly decided Supreme Court case, and we’ll all be running around with MANPADS, just like the Founders intended!
Can anybody explain to me why there is such an insistence on concealed carry? I think even Scalia would not claim that the 2nd amendment makes that an unalienable right (ever seen a militia that hides its hardware on duty?). Why not openly signal ‘I am armed, so don’t meddle with me.’? Is the sole purpose that one can make use of it without the other side having a warning?
Interesting tidbit: In Elizabethan England there was a law that banned any type of firearm that could be easily concealed under one’s clothing and all others had to be carried in the open. Pistols had just been invented and were considered suitable for not much more than sneaky murder because beyond a few yards distance they only served as noisemakers (it has been speculated that the Shakespeare character got his name from this).
Ok, there are two elements to this:
First, before concealed carry reform swept the country, there was already concealed carry in most states. It was “merely” subject to arbitrary discretion, and mostly only available to the politically connected. You could have a maniac making threats on your life, and not get the permit, you could be the safest guy on the planet, and get it if you were a big contributor to a local politician. Concealed carry reform didn’t create concealed carry, it just removed the abused discretion, and replaced it with objective rules. And this worked, the rate of crime by CCW permit holders is a fraction of that by the general public.
Part two is that, in most states, (Like my native Michigan, before I had to move.) “open” carry was already legal. You’ve got to have one or the other, given that there’s a constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms, you know. But the right was mostly theoretical. If your jacket swung across your holster for a moment, or a cop even testified that it did, you could, and would, be charged with illegally concealing the gun. Or the cop could charge you with “brandishing”, or “acting in a threatening manner”, or all kinds of offenses that he could basically make up on the spot, and you had no way to disprove.
And an awful lot of cops didn’t like the idea of armed citizens, and would take any opportunity to hassle them.
So, concealed carry permits not only protected you from bogus charges of concealing your gun, they kept the cops from knowing you were carrying, so that they couldn’t harass you about it. Having the permit made it practical to exercise a right you already had.
Further, in most states, having the permit exempts you from various waiting periods and other BS when buying a gun. It’s worth it for that even if you don’t plan to carry.
So, what’s not to like about concealed carry reform, unless you like abusively exercised discretion and rights being denied?
Of course, the downside is that a lot of CCW laws require you to actually conceal the gun, or you’re subject to that “brandishing” bs again. But we’re working on that.
So in your opinion the main reason to carry a gun concealed is to avoid official harrassment?
Should have thought of that. I’ll spare you (most of) my thoughts on that, you know them anyway.
Imo right to bear arms = duty to carry openly (except in closely circumscribed circumstances), Iyo no right to concealment = no (de facto) right to gun at all.
You could have a maniac making threats on your life, and not get the permit, you could be the safest guy on the planet, and get it if you were a big contributor to a local politician.
I just hope you put the ‘not’ in the wrong place there.
I just noticed that sentence could be read in two very different ways. The way I got it was you said the maniac could be (wrongfully) denied the permit and the safe guy get it instead. I presume that was not your intention.
But there can’t have been legal carry before, because sapient would have been frightened.
safest = not subject to any threats (as opposed to “rigorously practices safety,” which would make someone a good candidate for concealed carry)
That’s how I read it after a few tries.
So, that it keeps getting brought up as a support for Zimmerman’s edgy, vigilante personality is something you think of as asinine?
first of all, everything about Zimmerman has been brought up multiple times in this endless thread.
but more importantly, people were upset about Zimmerman long long long before anything about his police phone call records became public. people were upset as soon as they heard the details of the night in question. the phone records just backed up what people already suspected: that he was an easily-excitable wanna-be cop.
and most importantly, without the phone calls, nobody would have a different opinion of Zimmerman.
That’s the going narrative, yes.
i will just assume that you’re upset that it’s obvious.
I got a bad impression of Zimmerman because he confronted Tryavon for no reason and compounded that bad behavior by following him even when he had been advised not to. Then, of course, he shot Trayvon
Bad judgement.
That bad judgement dovetails in my mind with the info I discovered later about Zinnerman’s history of violence, particularly the incidents involving his ex-wife and the one in volving a police officer. Granted I know nothing about those incidents except that he got a police record from them.
So, on the surface, a pattern of bad judgement. Why the bad judgement? That’s speculation, of course. Could be the sort of racism which is rather common: racism toward the black stranger. That sort of attitide can exist comfortably inthe mind of a person who is not racist at all towards people he or she is acquainted with. And ancestry has nothing to do with it; people of lots of ethnicities jumpt to negative asumptions about people of other ethnicities.
Or he could be the kind of guy who looks for a fight and then pretends to be the victim. He was carrying a gun for no reason related to the reality outside of his head. He wasn’t in any danger of being attacked unless he provoked the attack himself, after all. (Which he did).
My guess is he’s the kind of guy who wants to be a hero, or a cop wanna-be, which is an admirable trait when combined with good judgement but dangerous when combined with bad.
But whatever went on inside hie head, it wasn’t rational.
He started something he didn’t know how to finish except by shooting someone else. That makes him, in my mind, not a hero, but a danger to anyone who happens by gets turned by him into the villian of his imagination.
Maybe Zimmerman has learned something. I hope so.
Assume whatever you like, but I am actually fairly serene.
Even if everything in George’s head was true the easy shot from his hip would have been into Travon’s leg.
Going to the effort to put the bullet into Trayvon’s heart was unnecessary and a purposeful disregard for human life i.e. manslaughter.
In the end George is just one more moron with a gun and Trayvon was just another kid unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe Zimmerman has learned something. And others have learned from from his example. I hope so.
Going to the effort to put the bullet into Trayvon’s heart was unnecessary and a purposeful disregard for human life i.e. manslaughter.
Not really, no. Standard marksmanship training is to shoot for the center of mass. If we assume Mr. Zimmerman was anything but a cool, calculating man when he pulled the trigger (and all but the most overwrought of narratives both decrying and lionizing him do so), it makes perfect sense to assume trained motion would guide his shot. Hence, shooting him in the chest should be assumed to be less effort, not more.
Does standard marksmanship training involve someone sitting on you? Quick shot from the hip without aiming was my thinking. George was in a big hurry in all other respects.
So, is it true or not true that Zimmerman followed Martin, first in his car and then on foot, at night, while saying uncomplimentary things about the person he was following?
Quick shooting from the hip is still going to involve the ingrained notion that if you shoot, you take a shot that will hit and have a meaningful impact. Limb shots are harder (even at close range) and less immediately debilitating than hitting the center of mass. Also, a shot “from the hip” w/o aiming is still going to be aimed in a general direction, and the difference between a shot at the leg and a shot into the chest is a matter of a few degrees.
Also, a leg shot can be just as easily fatal as a chest wound. Very, very much so. The romantic notion that limb wounds (to say nothing of upper leg wounds) are “just flesh wounds” is a silly idea brought on by paying too much attention to movies and TV, and too little to anatomy and physiology.
i believe that is true, Ugh.
Thanks cleek.
My next question is whether a reasonable person in Martin’s position find Zimmerman’s behaviour threatening. I suppose Martin would not have known about the uncomplimentary comments, but apparently knew about the following, and time of day.
I’m visualizing George reaching under Travon’s thigh to get to his gun. A 9mm bullet from zero inches into a thigh should have a meaningful impact I would guess. If it takes out the femoral artery the victim could bleed out pretty fast.
IMO, it seems obvious that a reasonable person would feel threatened.
other people here seem to think that’s an idea so preposterous as to be beyond entertaining.
If I was in George’s shoes I would not have felt threatened, but then I can get very unreasonable at times
The question is not whether having somebody follow you can be “threatening”. I know at least one person who’s capable, in the right state, of finding “Nice weather we’re having, isn’t it?” menacing, and anybody is going to be nervous followed by somebody they don’t know on a dark, rainy night.
The question is whether it’s “OMG, I’m about to be killed if I don’t dish out some potentially lethal violence!” threatening. Because that’s the level of threatening that’s require to be legally entitled to beat on somebody: You’ve got to be in a position where a rational person would believe they were about to die or suffer grevious injury if they didn’t resort to violence.
What strikes me is that he didn’t find it “Stay on the phone” threatening, or “Call 911” threatening. Going by the girlfriend’s testimony, it may have been more, “Think I’ll beat up that homo” threatening, which is decidedly NOT legal justification for delivering a beatdown.
The frustrating thing about the whole discussion is that there are a number of reasonable opinions one might hold regarding the circumstances of the case, so long as those opinions aren’t held as knowledge. Everything I think about what happened is qualified by my acceptance that I don’t actually know, because I wasn’t there. I’m working with incomplete and imperfect information.
The conversation goes quasi-meta as soon as you are defending your opinions from attacks that characterize your opinions as being unreasonable, at which point your defense is seen as an attack on someone else’s opinion for being unreasonable. Thus the sh1t-storm ensues.
One thing I know is unreasonable is certitude on the case. It’s not the only thing that might be unreasonable. Even if you’re only half sure about it, thinking, say, that Trayvon Martin was the physical manifestation of Satan and that God commanded George Zimmerman to shoot him would also be unreasonable. But I haven’t seen much of that sort of thing here.
And look who walks in while I’m typing my comment.
anybody is going to be nervous followed by somebody they don’t know on a dark, rainy night.
I agree.
The question is whether it’s “OMG, I’m about to be killed if I don’t dish out some potentially lethal violence!” threatening. Because that’s the level of threatening that’s require to be legally entitled to beat on somebody
This is factually untrue.
In FL, the bar for the use of non-deadly force in self-defense is much lower than that:
The meaning of ‘unlawful force’ as used here is generally any application of force or restraint without the consent of person on the receiving end. It’s pretty broad. FL may have a more specific meaning, if so I was unable to find one.
Note that Zimmerman did not actually have to use unlawful force against Martin, all that would have been required for Martin’s punching him or otherwise applying non-deadly force to be lawful under FL law would be for Martin to *reasonably believe* that Zimmerman was about to do so.
If Martin reasonably believed that Zimmerman was about to use unlawful force against him, he was well within the law in punching him and knocking him down.
Zimmerman’s perception was that Martin was on the way to killing him, but that perception is not borne out by the medical examiner’s statements. Martin applied no deadly force, as can be demonstrated by the fact that Zimmerman got up and walked away.
Your statement is false.
“Nice weather we’re having, isn’t it”
…..Clarice.
I find most tough guys to be menacing in their small talk. I think it gives them time to scope out where the door is.
On the other hand, it might be mistake to take a long gaze at the sky to confirm the weather, considering that your throat is now exposed.
“Assume whatever you like, I am actually fairly serene.”
It’s this, Slart’ s serenity, that has driven legions of former and current OBWIers stark raving mad over the years. It’s like punching a mime and having him go all Muhammed Ali rope-a-dope limp, or like trying to arm wrestle Harpo Marx.
Pretty soon, your hat’s aflame, he’s wearing your jacket — with you still in it, and Chico is selling you bogus self-help pamphlets at a dollar a pop.
He gooses your girlfriend and she finds it bracing.
I hate it when goes he goes all limp during an argument.
It’s highly suspicious behavior but I would remain in the car if I was yous guys.
Especially Brett
Standard Marksmanship Training sounds like something appropriate for a Marine and not a Peace Officer or a Neighborhood Watchman.
If one bullet to the thigh or butt would not have had enough meaningful impact to distract Travon from his head slamming George had seven more.
Yeah, assuming he was still conscious for the second shot, assuming that you can take careful aim while being beaten like a drum, assuming all sorts of things that are unreasonable.
Jeff, it’s all well and good to say that Mr. Zimmerman “should have” taken a leg shot, but it elides the point that he shouldn’t have taken any shot. If he took a shot, which under the awful law he was by all appearances within his rights to, he had every right to take a chest shot. If he had any marksmanship training, to include just going and shooting silhouettes, he has trained to shoot CoM. If he’s on his back with someone on top of him, trying for a shot into the leg would require more precision and foresight than he was likely capable of exercising… not to mention that he might well think (and not unreasonably) that a bullet into Mr. Martin’s leg could easily end up in his own body next. Beside which, as you concede, a leg shot can be just as lethal, thus bringing into question why you suggested a chest shot is “a purposeful disregard for human life”, but a leg shot would be no such thing.
Seriously, if your point is that Mr. Zimmerman shouldn’t have shot, I agree wholeheartedly. If your point is that where in the body he aimed is, under the circumstances laid out in the trial, meaningful in relation to the law (or even just unreasonable), not so much.
Sounds like something is getting capitalized that isn’t A Thing, really.
As far as I am aware, there isn’t really a standard of marksmanship training. But going the other way, there isn’t as far as I know any sort of Rex O’Herlihan-ish school of marksmanship where you learn to shoot to disarm, or slightly incapacitate. The skill and discipline necessary to do that kind of thing is, IMO, a few levels above what you could learn without putting in a huge amount of range time.
IIRC, the pulp hero of the Avenger novels, (I’m a big Lester Dent fan.) routinely “creased” his foes, by shooting them in the skull at such a shallow angle that the bullet simply knocked them out while leaving a shallow flesh wound.
Back in the real world, the standard rule for shooting at people, emphisized over and over, is “You don’t shoot unless you would be justified in killing, and then you shoot for center of mass.” Because any time you shoot someone, you run the risk of killing them, and shooting for center of mass minimizes the chance of missing. If you miss, after all, you might hit somebody ELSE.
Good points all around.
I remain unpersuaded by evidence presented that GZ needed to take any action that night especially shooting Travon in the heart.
I will enjoy Rustlers’ Rhapsody.