Rodney and George
The recent case of Trayvon Martin brought an interesting parallel to my attention: that of Yoshi Hattori, the young Japanese exchange student shot and killed by a Baton Rouge homeowner who mistook him for an intruder. In both cases, the victim was an innocent young man. In both cases, there was a state law on the books giving ordinary gun owners permission to shoot people they believed to be criminals. In both cases, there was a media firestorm which failed to give fully accurate descriptions of the events in question.
However, in both cases, the most significant factor, at least to my reckoning, was that the men who wielded the guns failed to act responsibly. Neither did what they were supposed to do. Rodney Peairs, the man who shot Yoshi Hattori, had a right to defend his home–but he violated that precept when he unnecessarily stepped outside his home to actively confront the “intruders.” No matter how it played out in terms of specifics, George Zimmerman made the same error: instead of holding back and allowing trained professionals to do their job, he pursued Martin, and Martin is now dead as a result. In both cases, the men with guns felt the necessity to confront the people they felt threatened by, no doubt emboldened by the possession of their weapons.
Every right comes with a responsibility. We have a grave misperception about the “right” to bear arms, that this right comes with little or no obligation to that responsibility, save for after the fact. Even for something as mundane as driving a car, we require a person to be well-trained and to pass a specified test. After being licensed, the driver must register their vehicles, and maintain the licensing and registration for as long as they own and operate them. The right to travel freely is held even more sacredly than that of the right to own and carry a gun, and yet no one seems to mind the trouble we are required to go to with car ownership.
Suggest that the same level of training and registration be necessary for firearms–devices inherently far more dangerous, devices designed to kill people–and gun advocates start acting like you’re some kind of fascist or something.
Peairs and Zimmerman both owned guns, and they both assumed a right to step beyond their own bounds and confront people they believed to be criminals. That is an explosive combination that will result in the deaths of innocent people. Peairs required no training to be armed in his home; Zimmerman only needed to take a few hours of gun safety courses before he was allowed to walk the streets armed. If either received training which firmly emphasized that they retreat from confrontation instead of seek it out, it certainly did not take.
In my mind, Zimmerman is guilty. Not because I know how the specifics played out, that Martin did not assault him, or anything else. Instead, it was because Zimmerman was the one holding a gun, he did not need to pursue Martin (the 911 call made that clear), and so he bore responsibility.
I blogged extensively on the Yoshi Hattori case back in 2003 because I felt that it had been wildly misrepresented in the media. Some commenters took issue with me because they assumed that I did not hold Peairs responsible for the shooting death of Hattori. This is because I represented the case realistically, and in detail, from Peairs’ point of view, making it clear how he believed that he and his family were actually in jeopardy, and even out in the carport, how he believed that he had given fair warning and had reason to believe the person approaching him was criminal in nature. Nevertheless, I made the strong point that Peairs was fully responsible, and that responsibility stemmed from his decision to open his door, step outside, and confront people he thought were criminals. The moment he did so, he sealed his fate, and bore responsibility for what ensued. The right thing to do would have been to make sure the doors and windows were locked, maintain vigil within the house, and wait for trained professionals to arrive.
There are reasons why they are trained: it is not a trivial matter to confront possible suspects with arms. Police train quite seriously to make that decision responsibly; ordinary citizens cannot be expected to act with the same level of judgment, no matter what they believe themselves capable of. By taking a minimal NRA gun course (which may have had little more than target practice and instruction in safe handling and cleaning of firearms), Zimmerman gained the ability to carry a concealed weapon. As for being a “neighborhood watch captain,” it was only because he was the only one to volunteer. However, his “neighborhood watch” was not one of the thousands of official watch groups or police-trained watch organizations which require background checks, interviews, and 60 hours of training–all of which require strict adherence to rules. Zimmerman, with an apparent checkered past in terms of his temper and work in security, was apparently just waved in to that position by a certain number of neighbors.
This is fully legal, though. And that’s a big part of the problem: as a society which venerates gun rights over safety, we allow and even encourage this idiocy.
We have states where legislatures pass laws which allow people to be armed in bars. I mean, really, how stupid can you get? Pass a law which specifically says that you can go to an establishment which sells an intoxicant which impairs your judgment, and carry a lethal weapon while you’re at it? What, was there are shortage of armed drunks somewhere? What possible reason could there be for such idiocy? The same bars are probably required to take measures to make sure that you do not go out and drive drunk–but the lawmakers thought it wise to encourage the same people to go armed?
This is indicative of a culture which believes that gun possession and use are sacrosanct, and believe there should be no barriers whatsoever to that right.
There is a legal right to keep and bear arms. I strongly hold that this right is not enshrined in the Second Amendment, as is widely believed, but in the Ninth Amendment. However, where the right is written matters little. What matters is that no right comes without responsibility. You may wield rights, but not to the point where they infringe upon the rights of others. And to let a virtually untrained random citizen go on the streets armed thinking he’s some kind of vigilante cop is, almost by definition, a violation of the rights of all people who walk those streets, as their lives are in danger–far more than if an unlicensed driver got behind the wheel of an SUV and drove around your neighborhood. You would feel extremely nervous if you knew that were happening–why not the same with untrained people carrying arms around? Especially when the person carrying the gun is more likely than usual to have a sense of vigilantism and an inflated perception of his judgment in using his firearm.
Anyone who wants to buy a gun for home protection should be required to take at the very least a gun safety course, to store the weapon safely, and keep licensed and registered all weapons in their possession (spare me the “what if a new Hitler rises” bullshit). Anyone wishing to leave their home armed should be required to take extensive training and testing designed specifically for that purpose (not minimal generic safety courses), at the very least as much as is done with cars.
As for Zimmerman, he bore responsibility the moment he walked out with a gun and decided to confront the stranger he saw. He claims that he did not confront, but was blindsided by Martin–an incredible unlikelihood considering what we know, and a story that sounds like it was suggested by a family attorney familiar with the stand-your-ground law more than it was an accurate and truthful telling of how events unfolded that night.
Like Peairs, Zimmerman armed himself and then went out to find bad guys despite having no training qualifying him to do so. In my mind, that is what makes him guilty in the most general sense.
If you carry a weapon, then you must answer to a higher level of responsibility.
“We have states where legislatures pass laws which allow people to be armed in bars. I mean, really, how stupid can you get?”
vs
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
Curious. Why do you find it so unlikely that Zimmerman was only trying to observe and report?
Note that he does not claim to have been blindsided from behind, at least not in the literal sense. All versions of the story have them speaking to each other before things went sideways.
I am asking because I see so many people state as given that Zimmerman ‘confronted’ Martin but I am not aware of any evidence that this occurred. What am I missing?
Separately, it’s not carrying in bars that’s the issue. It is restaurants. Turns out there’s really no bright line dividing the two concepts, although some states have tried.
And Troy, in Oregon you can carry in a bar. In LA you basically can’t carry at all. Since CA has about three times the homicide rate, I find the comparison… Amusing.
“What am I missing?”
You’re missing the fact that you are a racist shithead.
Please fuck off. Thanks.
Zimmerman shot and killed a black teenager who was trying to walk home.
Zimmerman had no business getting out of his vehicle with his handgun, just like the Louisiana guy had no business going out of his house with his handgun.
Seriously. Fuck off.
I’m… Racist? Seriously? That’s all you got?
Come on, you guys are usually better than this.
In case any grown-up reads this, it’s a serious question. What actual evidence available at this point that supports the claim that Zimmerman ‘confronted’ Martin?
Fuck off with the passive-aggressive ignorance bit.
Just do some research on your own to learn what is learnable now; or state what you want to say if you have anything interesting to add to the discussion.
The kid was shot dead on a walkway between units 70 yards from home.
I don’t know much more than that. I don’t want to know much more than that. We’re probably not going to be able to learn much more than that given we only have one good witness, the shooter, plus a bunch of hearsay stuff.
The police totally fucked up the prosecution of this case, and racism has a lot to do with it.
And the internet is full of racist conservatives like you continuing to fuck things up wrt this. I fully expect this to result in another Rodney King riot bullshit outcome.
Just great. Well done, racists.
“There is a legal right to keep and bear arms. I strongly hold that this right is not enshrined in the Second Amendment, as is widely believed, but in the Ninth Amendment. “
Other than the textual support from the 2nd amendment as it pertains to national security issues, I agree with this, that we all have a universal right, protected by the 9th, to own self-defense equipment like handguns, albeit subject to the police power of the State to establish and enforce any necessary and proper regulations on its free exercise.
I hadn’t thought of the Hattori parallel prior to your post, but it’s a pretty good one.
Here in Fresno there’s like a shooting seemingly every week now. Last December there was this screwed-up incident:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8477036
This society may or may not be just starting to fly apart again. I think economy-wise, things are going to get increasingly stressed as the System fails to fix the serious imbalances and the US moves more towards the high-Gini situations of eg. Latin America.
Checking zillow on Zimmerman’s house I see it was purchased for $250,000 in 2006 and has a valuation of $90,000 now.
The housing bubble of 2002-2007 was a temporary respite from the continued hollowing-out of the US middle quintiles.
The lowest quintile has always been screwed, but the 1990s was a brief reversal and nice move towards full-employment, but that all collapsed in the 2001 recession.
Then the bubble came in 2002 and showered $5T or so on the middle class. It was all borrowed money, but cash is cash and it made things better for a while.
But that’s failed now too and the System doesn’t really have any answers for the problems we’re facing. Well, no easy answers. The real solution is going to require either doubling the tax level or massive cuts to government spending, and either alternative, or a combination to meet in the middle, is politically very difficult.
The Dems raised taxes in 1991-93, and the electorate threw them out of power in 1994. Politicians aren’t going to make that mistake again.
Umm… OK, let’s simmer down. Troy, please knock off the name-calling, that’s not welcome. Jon, the baiting is just as unwelcome.
Jon:
Because, by his own report, he got out of his SUV and chased after the kid. Like Peairs leaving his house, Zimmerman leaving his vehicle made a physical confrontation infinitely more likely. When, by the way, the 911 operator told him not to pursue.
When I wrote “blindsided,” I was condensing, but only slightly. Zimmerman claimed that he was walking back to his SUV, when Martin “surprised” him, coming from his left rear. Within a second or two, after a quick question, while Zimmerman said he reached for his phone, Zimmerman claims that Martin threw the first punch. If you want to pick nits, go ahead. It makes no difference in the larger sense, as I note in my editorial, nor is this the larger issue.
The reason I doubt him is the reason I doubt any self-serving one-sided eyewitness account. In my experience, such reports never tell the story accurately, and virtually always are well to one side of the truth.
The last we have of direct reporting in Zimmerman’s 911 call is that he was pursuing Martin. He left his SUV when Martin entered a cut-through, and when Martin turned a corner, Zimmerman lost him–but continued to pursue. He did not stop when he lost contact, he followed around a corner and walked at least several houses down before reportedly turning back.
If you look at Google satellite images of the area, you will see that Zimmerman’s account is highly unlikely. He would have been walking down that concrete walkway with nothing but grass and a few thin trees between the pathway and the buildings. For Martin to have surprised him as claimed is unlikely at best. What Martin’s girlfriend reported, that Trayvon started walking fast (probably as he entered the cut-in) and was followed by Zimmerman who approached and confronted him, is far more likely.
What seems most likely, from listening to the call while viewing the satellite view, is that Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while he was taking shelter from the rain in the clubhouse near the gates, which was when Trayvon noticed Zimmerman staring at him from his car. Disturbed, Trayvon walked down Twin Trees Circle past Zimmerman’s parked car and walked toward the cut-through. As he approaches the cut-through, at the advice of his girlfriend on the phone, he picks up his pace so that he can round the corner of the cut-through, then walks a bit, and then hides around one of the recesses of a unit in the building at 1231 Twin Trees Circle.
Zimmerman, seeing him run, drives close to the cut through, exits his vehicle, and makes it as far as the corner of the building where Martin would have turned and Zimmerman lost sight–that’s where, on his 911 call, the sound of him walking ends, and it is likely he is peering around the corner. At this time, he is asked to wait by his car, but asks instead for police to call him, indicating that he intended to continue pursuit.
Probably, as Zimmerman was ending his 911 call, Trayvon was waiting for the coast to clear and chatting with his girlfriend. After Zimmerman’s 911 call ended, Trayvon probably walked out to continue on his way home, whereupon Zimmerman spotted and approached him, as Trayvon’s girlfriend reported. Had Trayvon been hiding and Zimmerman walked down the path around the corner, it is extremely unlikely that Trayvon could have remained hidden so as to surprise Zimmerman.
The way that Zimmerman reports it, however, conveniently removes all possible legal blame from himself, turning him from the one pursuing Martin–making him a criminal–to, once the official record ends, instantly becoming the one stalked and a victim, comes across as tailor-made to present a legal defense.
Not to mention that Zimmerman was the one attempting to approach and, even by his own report, Martin was attempting to avoid contact. Not that it could not have reversed, but it is less likely.
All of which is beside my central point: Zimmerman did not need to exit his SUV and pursue someone between residential buildings in the area in the rain, and in fact he was told not to.
Just as Peairs made the error of leaving his house, when Zimmerman left his car and, armed, pursued on foot against police request, he became responsible for the outcome.
I do not think there is a police officer or neighborhood watch organization who would tell you that what Zimmerman did was the right thing to do.
Excellent timeline here, police report establishing location of the shooting here (PDF).
Late edit: one more note. Martin’s girlfriend’s phone records show that she was indeed on the phone with him until the altercation began. This also goes against Zimmerman’s report that the was surprised, and supports the scenario I paint above that their paths did not cross until just before the altercation–whereas Zimmerman’s testimony suggests that Martin was quietly hiding somewhere and jumped out from hiding at the last moment. [End edit]
Wow, LA has three times the number of homicides in bars? How about that.
Yeah, imagine there being more shootings in CA than OR. It MUST be because allowing armed people in bars is safer.
Troy:
Whoops, seemed to cross-post–I spent a while composing the last one, yours came in before I was done.
Actually, it seems that we’re getting more and more mass killings more and more often. Can’t possibly have any connection whatever with the fact that guns are flooding the market, as controls are worn down more and more.
( I am cherry picking what I reply to here because I’m working off an iPhone and typing is a bear. And I’m not really trying to argue the points; we have never agreed on much, I just like to hear your reasoning. Boring to listen to people who think just like me.)
So your position is that the point of causality is when Z got out of his SUV. If he had not done so, none of this could have occurred. Correct?
But why that point? There are any number of points that would also serve. From getting out of bed in the morning to the decision to go to the store, changing any of them could have averted this.
I have a basic problem with the notion that someone waives their right to self defense by taking a legal action that is entirely within their rights. And getting out of tha car and walking down the street is entirely legal. Looking at or for someone does not change that.
I would say that responsibilty lies with the person who broke the law. If that was Zimmerman than I hope he gets put away for a long,long time. But I do not see the evidence for this.
It will be interesting to see how the prosecution tries to handle his injuries. Hard to think of many ways to get multiple wounds to the back of the head that are not a felony.
Jon:
It is not a random event that he got out of his car; it was a decision point. He was not a policeman, he was not trained or authorized to pursue criminals. Getting out of the car was a cusp upon which he went from being an observer to being an actor. Huge difference. I contend it makes all the difference.
If you decide to carry a weapon and patrol the neighborhood, then chase down people you believe are criminal suspects, you cannot do so without also carrying a far greater burden of responsibility–not just on the chance that the person you suspect is innocent, but also because you stand to harm bystanders as well. There is a reason that police train heavily for this kind of thing, and why vigilantism is not allowed.
When Zimmerman got out of bed, he did not change his role. When he went to the store, he did not change his role. When he spotted Trayvon and watched from within the car, he did not change his role.
When got out and pursued, he changed his role significantly. He took on greater responsibilities, whether he intended to or not, and an innocent young boy is dead as a result.
What seems most likely, from listening to the call while viewing the satellite view, is that Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while he was taking shelter from the rain in the clubhouse near the gates, which was when Trayvon noticed Zimmerman staring at him from his car.
What is also possible is that Zimmerman was driving out of his complex (on his way to Target) and came across Treyvon cutting into the complex from the NW side (not the main gate):
http://i.imgur.com/hQyN4.jpg
is what this shortcut looks like from the street that goes to the 7-11.
It’s possible Zimmerman started following Treyvon inside the complex before Treyvon stopped at the clubhouse.
It will be interesting to see how the prosecution tries to handle his injuries.
Alleged injuries. We have just about no way of determining what happened that night, thanks to the police refusing to investigate it and, allegedly, even interfering with the collection of evidence.
This thing stinks to high heaven.
What interests me more is the legions jumping to the defense of this killer.
And Zimmerman did kill Treyvon. There was no justifiable self-defense here. Just a Walter Mitty-type fucking up and chasing the wrong nigger who actually belonged in his condo complex. All this goes against the internal narrative of the conservative mind, so conservatives have to wheel out the bullshit to defend it, as they always do when reality doesn’t match their prejudices.
Unless there’s security camera footage or the NSA releases their recording of Treyvon’s 7:12 call to his girlfriend, we’ll never know what actually happened that night.
Just the he-said of the shooter vs. the silence of the dead kid.
Great job conservatives. Score another notch for your ideology.
Troy – why in the world do you believe the police “refused to investigate”?
I agree the part with officer allegedly correcting the witness was not good.
And seriously, how did this turn into a conservative / liberal thing? I really do believe conservatives and liberals are losing the ability to communicate with each other.
why in the world do you believe the police “refused to investigate”
That’s my general impression. You mentioned Zimmerman’s account of having his head slammed against the concrete walkway by Trayvon.
We’ll see if the police actually inspected that walkway for blood residue.
And seriously, how did this turn into a conservative / liberal thing?
Do a tour of the blogs and you will find gatewaypundit, righwinggrannie, dailycaller, Foxnews etc etc all over this, defending the murderer with vague bullshit just as you have done here.
To paraphrase JS Mill:
‘I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally racist. I meant to say that racist people are generally conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.’
Racists are a solid conservative bloc, along with the creationists & fundies, glibertarian fools, Likudniks, and trust fund babies.
And it’s been conservative policies since Reagan that have put thin nation — the wealthiest the world has ever seen — into more parlous economic straights.
We have a per-capita GDP of over $100,000. You wouldn’t know it walking around half our cities.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS14000006
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU01300006
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=6sv
The recent Ryan Budget is the latest Republican marker on where the conservatives want to take this country — a pretty ugly and mean place, really.
I really do believe conservatives and liberals are losing the ability to communicate with each other.
Yes, we passed the bridge some time ago. I consider all conservatives quasi-traitors who have destroyed my country 1995-2005.
Would you like the list? I have it you know.
(per-worker GDP over $100,000 not per-capita)
I am not interested in defending Zimmerman, at least not directly.
I AM interested in trying to find out the facts, in the most precise definition of the word ‘fact’.
What do we know? How EXACTLY do we know it? What are the sources? When did they say what they said?
If, repeat IF, Zimmerman’s account is true, he shot a young man who wad committing a violent felony. AFTER yelling for help for at least a full minute when he had means to defend himself the whole time. That’s pretty solid self defense.
If, repeat IF, some solid evidence comes out to prove that his story is false, then he is guilty of at least manslaughter and should be put on a cage.
When I started looking into this, the initial opinion on the gun boards was that Z was a ‘mall ninja’ who got out of hand. No support at all,
But a number if us who read up on it started to notice the type of reporting. Heavy on characterizations and innuendo, real thin on sources.
And note how much of it HAS turned out fake. Remember how for a whole week it was 240lb guy against a 140lb boy? That was ENTIRELY made up. Remember how Martin was this angel who would never hurt a fly? Nope, instead he’s a fairly typical 17 year.
Understand that what was on the news from 3-17 to 3-24 was basically just a press release from Martins moms lawyer printed as news with NO fact checking. Also note that drumming up popular outrage is something this lawyer is famous for (Crump).
So when we actually start tracking down sources we find that a huge portion is either plain fabrication or distorted beyond recognition. And still, I have found NO evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s story. (actually to be precise, I have discounted the ever-improving story of the 13yr old witnesses mom, and I am agnostic on the identification of the voices yelling on the 911 tapes. My GUT says Z was the one yelling ‘help’ and M was the one who yelled ‘no,no’ right before the shot)
Sorry for the long winded-ness.
We don’t know what happened that night outside of the broadest of events.
What we do know is that an armed man with a history of violence, apparently unstable that night (per the 911 call records), went out of his way to play cop and ended up shooting a kid dead.
Now, it’s indeed possible that Trayvon got pissed off about this guy following him, double backed up the walkway and eventually attacked him as the encounter with Zimmerman escalated for whatever reason. But if the SYG law allows Zimmerman to shoot him dead without a murder charge, it’s quite likely that a tremendous miscarriage of justice, since self-defense homicide is supposed to be life and death situations, and at this point I really don’t think Trayvon was out to murder someone on the back walkway to where he was staying.
But if you’re the typical American racist shithead, that’s the narrative you’ve got playing in your head, which is what I picked up on earlier.
“These assholes. They always get away.”
Well, not this time. Well done, Mr Licensed Concealed Carry Gunowner, a true American hero.
Meanwhile, two state legislators who sponsored Florida’s “stand your ground” deadly-force law in 2005 called for George Zimmerman to be arrested for shooting Martin. “They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” one of the lawmakers, Republican former Sen. Durell Peaden told the Miami Herald. “He has no protection under my law.” His co-sponsor, current Rep. Dennis Baxley (R), told the paper: “There’s nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people, particularly if law enforcement has told you to stay put. I don’t see why this statute is being challenged in this case. That is to prevent you from being attacked by other people.”
^ that was me. From the same report:
The girl’s final call to Trayvon lasted four minutes, Crump said. One minute after she and Martin were cut off, police were reportedly on the scene.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained
While short of a recording we can’t have solid knowledge of what Trayvon and his girlfriend were talking about immediately prior to his killing, the mere fact that he was on the phone to his girlfriend immediately prior to the encounter with Zimmerman does have some relevance as to Trayvon’s mental state and intentions that night.
We need a trial to reconstruct what happened that night, but the police fucked things up by not investigating this homicide with any due diligence. From appearances, the Sanford PD felt Zimmerman was doing them a service.
Although not addressed to me–
… why in the world do you believe the police “refused to investigate”?
The alternative is, what? They felt it was not necessary? A 17-year-old boy, just as potentially a resident as Zimmerman himself, lay on the ground, shot dead. You’re the police: do you really think there is no imperative to investigate? Honestly?
Turn the situation around: the shooting victim was a 17-year-old boy… who was white. He had just been shot dead by a black man. Really, honestly, in all truthfulness, do you think they would not have investigated that? At least have kept the shooter overnight? Tried to find out the identity of the victim, no harder than picking up his cell phone and calling a few numbers?
Police at the scene did not collect even the most basic physical evidence–no clothing from the shooter, and apparently no photos of him either. He was not administered tests for drugs or alcohol. And his story was so shaky that the lead homicide investigator didn’t buy it. And yet police on the scene apparently failed to do even the most basic checks and evidence collection, as if they were thinking, ‘yeah, just another black drug-addict criminal, nobody will miss him, let’s just close this one up.’
What’s more, Zimmerman’s family connections may have bought him slack as well. Zimmerman’s father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate, according to various reports. Considering how often Zimmerman interacted with local police, and the elder Zimmerman’s likely interactions on his son’s behalf, it is more than likely that the police officers were aware of this, and that may have also contributed to their actions–or, as it stands, their inaction.
Whether it was due to racist disregard or the abuse of influence, how can you even question the assertion that they refused to investigate? There was a standing imperative to do so, and they did not. What else would you call it?
Whoa, a lot of comments while I was composing, even more than before. I have to start copying finished comments I intend to post and refreshing the page to see what’s snuck in…
Jon, why did you move from asking a question which appeared to state incredulity at the idea that police refused to investigate, and then move directly to noting that there is no solid evidence? After all, the latter illustrates the former. We don’t have hard facts to go on because the police failed to investigate properly.
Also, since when do the police release a shooter after only two hours on his own word that he was justified without collecting sufficient evidence–and after the lead homicide investigator found the shooter’s story to be unbelievable? I mean, not even to hold him overnight, for Christ’s sake?
And I can say that living in Japan in the 1990s opened my eyes a bit to the reality of life as a minority in the US, even though being a gaijin in Tokyo probably had as much positive cred as negative.
I felt freest in Japan on my motorcycle, since in helmet, jacket, and gloves nobody easily tell I wasn’t Japanese.
Life for black people in the US is a crazy thing. Obama’s election in 2008 was a step in the right direction, but the conservatives in this country haven’t really covered themselves in glory combatting the fever swamps of their racist contingent.
The situations are somewhat parallel. 30-50% of black males are criminals, and 30-50% of conservatives are racists. This sick dynamics feed off each other.
This is an usual crime in that the PD were at-hand rather immediately after the shooting, and both principals were on their phones in the immediate run-up.
The black kid was shipped to morgue, the shooter was processed by the book and let go. End of story — just another day for America on our long slide to ruin.
Actually, my point was more basic. What makes you believe they did NOT do an investigation? How do you know what pictures they took? What evidence they collected? They have not released ANYTHING except the 911 tapes, and that was by court order. As far as I know, the police NEVER release evidence at this stage.
So why does everyone think they know what the police did or did not do?
(FWIW, as long as they do not think he is a flight risk, there is a strong incentive not to charge too soon. Florida has a pretty agressive ‘speedy trial’ law, 180 days from charges to trial or the case is dismissed IIRC. On the other hand, there is probably NO statute of limitations for murder two. )
I was waiting for Luis’ answer, but hear’s mine:
http://i.imgur.com/32K6U.jpg
Troy:
I’m not replying on this thread anymore, having decided that as I embarked on yet another hours-long search to provide evidence in response to his question. The reason was that I realized I had fallen for the same kind of comments-section tactics I saw time and time again on forums and blogs, usually by conservatives: give no evidence, demand evidence, and dance around the argument when you begin to lose.
In effect, the strategy is to never do any actual work yourself, but question any aspect you can of the other person’s statements, demanding evidence you yourself did not bother to look up. When the other person answers with specific evidence answering the assertion you made, don’t acknowledge that, act like it didn’t exist, and move on to a tangential or different topic, again presenting no evidence but demanding it from the other guy. Rinse and repeat.
First Jon asked for evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin, providing no evidence to support his own point–note his refrain of “I have seen no evidence.” I did research and came up with maps, police reports, and minute-by-minute accounts demonstrating how there was ample reason to believe that Zimmerman did more than just “observe and report.” Jon then abandoned the question of evidence and jumped to questioning a specific demarcation that indicated involvement; I again explained, and again the answer was ignored–at which Jon again jumped to a new point, about the police refusing to investigate, as if the prior conversation didn’t exist. Again, he offered no evidence, but demanded we provide it.
I was in the midst of digging into it when I realized what was happening, and that I was wasting my vacation time. I could again provide evidence and seal the argument–but would almost certainly find that Jon would again ignore what was presented and shift once more, again to offer no evidence but ask for me to go to a lot of trouble to provide evidence again.
My attitude is, he wants to make a point, let him dig up the evidence to support it. I got work to do before I can even get to relaxing, and this kind of disappearing-wild-goose-chase is a waste of my time.
“And I’m not really trying to argue the points; we have never agreed on much, I just like to hear your reasoning”
…
“I am not interested in defending Zimmerman, at least not directly.
I AM interested in trying to find out the facts, in the most precise definition of the word ‘fact’.
What do we know? How EXACTLY do we know it? What are the sources? When did they say what they said?”
None of that get’s through to you at all, does it?
“I have seen no evidence.”
Just as a mental exercise, consider the possibility that the words I write are indeed the words I mean. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is the concept of someone seriously trying to understand the opposing view so utterly foreign to you?
It’s a shame, you are one of the few people who believe almost exactly the opposite I do who can construct a factual, well reasoned argument. (as opposed to screaming “RACIST” and cursing at someone, say…)
I actually have been looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this for a while. I guess we all live within our limitations, but it might be worth your time to try out a new concept. Or not. It is your life to live.
If my questions are not welcome here I will not bother you again.
(ps. I drop subject areas as it became clear that you had said what you have to say and following up would only devolve into an argument. Really, if you re-read what I said without automatically making it an argument, it’s a whole different conversation.)
None of that get’s through to you at all, does it?
“My GUT says Z was the one yelling ‘help’ and M was the one who yelled ‘no,no’ right before the shot”
You have biases that are coloring all you are willing to see in this event.
You say as much:
“I have found NO evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s story. (actually to be precise, I have discounted the ever-improving story of the 13yr old witnesses mom, and I am agnostic on the identification of the voices yelling on the 911 tapes.”
You have nothing to add to this discussion other than your vague bullshit.
I brought up the possibility, and Luis repeated it, that the reason we don’t apparently have any evidence worth a damn in this case is that the police dropped the ball entirely here in investigating it.
But now that Zimmerman is at least charged with the 2nd degree murder that he should have been (without the long delay of exculpation), what facts that can be established will be in the formal setting of a trial.
What we are doing here is just stating our “gut feelings” and suspicions we can draw from the sparse set of facts.I have tons.
(as opposed to screaming “RACIST” and cursing at someone, say…)
If you are referring to me, I can do more than that, too. However, as a factual matter, you need to undeestand and internalize why YOUR side of this debate is entirely conservative and chock-a-block with racist shitheads.
You asked why I was bringing politics and ideology into this. Your conservative ideology got this boy killed through multiple processes.
When your ideology starts killing people, you should start examining it.
I actually have been looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this for a while. I guess we all live within our limitations, but it might be worth your time to try out a new concept. Or not. It is your life to live.
Again with the passive-aggressive bullshit.
I said I was not trying to argue. I did not say I lack an opinion. This has all been aimed at trying to learn, not convince. I may well tell you what I believe, as it provides useful contrast that would allow us to zero in on why we come to such different conclusions.
To elaborate on the opinions I provided that you mention, I emphasize that my conclusion is a gut feeling as a marker that it should not be taken too seriously.
For example:
1. I have listened to the actual 911 recording of the man yelling for help before the gunshot and my conclusion was that it is impossible to identify a stranger’s voice with any confidence. Thus, based on hearing the recording myself, and my life experience that says a 17 year old and a 28 year old are not physically different enough to have definitive voice differences, I discount the testimony of the witness who swears she knows which stranger she heard..
2. None of the accounts of Zimmerman’s testimony have him claiming to have said the ‘no!no!’ right before the shot. Therefore I conclude it is somewhat likely that portion was Martin, probably spoken when he saw the gun drawn.
3. The eye witness ‘John’ stated that the man in red (Zimmerman) was yelling for help from under the other man(Martin). I consider his testimony more believable because it was given the next day, and shows no signs of having been contaminated by later knowledge. Thus, I conclude that the ‘help!… help!’ portion of the recording is highly likely to be Zimmerman.
4. The claims that various people have made who knew Martin or Zimmerman, saying they can identify the voice, could easily all be true if one sets aside the assumption of a single speaker.
This is what I have concluded regarding a small slice of the case, with supporting evidence, and with level of confidence listed as needed.
As far as I can tell, this agrees with every piece of evidence available.
I am trying to build a similar sense for the entirety of the case. To do that I must seek out the information that contradicts what I think I know.
That’s why I’m here. To learn.
Update : Just listened to the 911 recording again. Am now less certain I can identify the exact words screamed. But I will state even more definitively that claims is sounded ‘like a child’ are flatly ridiculous.
It could have been a 17 year old, or a 28 year old, but it was a physically adult male.
I will link to the recording at mother jones if you like, but it’s pretty grim stuff.
More vague bullshit I see.
Something happened in about the minute’s time between the cut-off of the kid’s call to his girlfriend and the police taking control of the crime scene.
As Luis said, we have no idea right now, just guesses. Only one person knows but in our system of justice we can’t force the truth out of him.
I am not particularly interested in your guesses and “gut feelings” on the evidence. If I wanted that I could visit about a thousand shithead conservative racist websites to hear your side of the story.
What Luis was getting at — explicitly — was the more fundamental issues involved in this tragedy where two lives got destroyed in a minute’s time.
You want to get into which party was screaming on the tape and “John’s” testimony instead. This is an avoidance mechanism to divert the discussion to bullshit he-said she-said, a place that Luis said he did not want to take the discussion since it’s irrelevant to these larger issues.
Instead, think about why a black man born in 1991 has a 30%+ chance of ending up imprisoned in his lifetime.
Think about why $90,000 lower-middle class multifamily housing in Florida and across the nation has to wall themselves behind gated communities and live in real fear of street crime. This is a ludicrous idea for those with a Japanese perspective — I bicycled 98% of the streets of Tokyo and never found and walled compounds like these, other than for fabulously wealthy individuals living on their estates, samurai-style.
Think about why Zimmerman’s condo was worth $250,000 when it was purchased not 7 years ago and only that $90,000 now. That too is a failure of conservativism, or more accurately an expected outcome of the conservative race-to-the-bottom crimogenic deregulation ideology that Florida experienced in the 1920s, during the S&L crisis of the 1980s, and again in the 2000s.
Think about why Zimmerman had to carry his 9mm on an errand to Target. What kind of fucked up society do we live in? Does your ideology have any answers, other than carry more guns and create more shoot out situations?
Think about the institutional history of racism in Sanford and thousands of communities all over the nation. I’ve read unconfirmed stories about how the city filled in its municipal swimming pool in the 1960s instead of integrating it in response to the Civil Rights Act requirements. Jackie Robinson apparently caught shit in the city during the Florida League when the Dodgers went down to Florida.
Think about this bullshit about NRA pushing these no-fault handgun laws on the nation. Why is the NRA even involved in this, aren’t they a hunting rights organization?
Think about the ludicrousness of SYG and how this incident perfectly illustrates why carry laws won’t work in the real world. SYG with only the shooter surviving with no witnesses quickly and inevitably devolves into “He was going for my piece”.
What a wonderful situation that is. The “piece” is the cause and solution to the life-or-death situation. Great.
What Luis probably doesn’t know is that wikipedia says the Louisiana shooting of Hattori ended up with a civil damages case of $650,000 to the defendant.
That’s not really justice (I’m sure NRA or some other conservative institution will offer insurance to cover the damages) but it’s something.
But SYG even covers that — civil damage suits are prevented under SYG.
It’s these bigger issues that are more interesting than the exact details of “who confronted who” and your chutzpah bullshit of asking for evidence we don’t have that wasn’t collected due to apparent PD malfeasance or conservatism.
Luis was correct in identifying the point of departure of this case to when Zimmerman left his vehicle to go pursue the “suspect” on foot, with his handgun. That was the critical departure that put him from exercising his 2nd Amendment hero-man rights to a 2nd Degree Murder suspect.
Vague? Vague?
I was pretty damn specific!
Frankly, I’m not interested in talking the larger issue with you. You just scream ‘racist’ and turn your little brain off whenever faced with any contrary ideas.
Not really possible to talk to someone like you. You have seized on ‘RACIST’ as the magic ‘I’m always right’ magic word. Probably 3/4 of all activists
(stupid iPhone) … 3/4 of activists on ANY issue are just sanctimonious pricks using their ‘issue’ as an excuse for poor behavior. Little cowardly bullies hiding behind the magic words in their echo chambers.
You are the 75%.
May you eventually grow out of your mindless hate.
There was no hate, mindless or otherwise, in my above.
““What am I missing?”
You’re missing the fact that you are a racist shithead.
Please fuck off. Thanks.
Zimmerman shot and killed a black teenager who was trying to walk home.
Zimmerman had no business getting out of his vehicle with his handgun, just like the Louisiana guy had no business going out of his house with his handgun.
Seriously. Fuck off.”
Presented in it’s entirety, without comment.
There’s no hate there. I’m just, at long last, tired of the conservative bullshit that has destroyed my country.
The world is not 6000 years old. We’re in fact descended from monkeys. “Taking out” Saddam the way we did in 2003 was a mistake. Anthropogenic global warming is a possible if not present existential threat to our descendants. Mandated health insurance is not communism. Homosex couples deserve the same legal protections as traditional hetero partnerships. Drill baby drill is not sufficient to solve our energy challenges. Continued free trade globalism is going to continue to hollow out this nation.
Our socio-economics and society in general is perhaps irretrievably fucked up and conservative fantasies & lies and the mistaken policies that have followed from these have had a lot to do with it.
The rubber really meets the road here with race relations and the immense economic disparity between races in this country. Conservatives have done much harm here, and it’s only going to get worse as this nation continues its trajectory of every great power that has come to uncritically believe its own bullshit.
‘sanctimonious pricks using their ‘issue’ as an excuse for poor behaviour’.
Are you actually trying to prove my point for me, or are you simply incapable of reading your own words?
That’s mean, I know, but maybe it will get through.
To say it more nicely, making an excuse for poor behavior is quite literally the same thing as saying ‘I know it’s wrong, but I plan to keep doing it’.
Perhaps it would be better to not do things that need excuses?
Your arguments are all about me and what you consider my personal faults. That is ad-hom argumentation, an avoidance mechanism to derail the conversation.
My arguments are about ideas — conservative ideas of race, social disparity, crime, — and how these ideas are destroying this country.
I can understand why you aren’t willing to be engaged on this field. You must avoid this topic because to face these truths would destroy you.
Luis was also talking about ideas — the parallel between this case and the Louisiana shooting when somebody else decided to use deadly force during a misunderstanding.
We still don’t know much of anything about the events of the evening of Feb 26.
All we have to talk about is the ideas.
Ad-hominem attacks are a means of avoidance?
“…you are a racist shithead.”
What were you avoiding then?
(In a meta sense, you are trying to regain the moral high ground and defend a plainly indefensible attack at the same time. You cannot do both, at least not effectively. I prefer discussion to debate to the point that I simply won’t apply effort to debate as a general rule. But as long as you continue to defend it? I can beat you up with it for basically no effort. And you will never get out from under it.
I give you a gift:
“I apologize. That was uncalled for. It won’t happen again.”
If you can say that, we can talk. If you cannot … what purpose is there in talking to you? What could it accomplish?)
a plainly indefensible attack
if it’s a fact it’s not an attack.
Are you a racist shithead?
The evidence I have now is based on two things.
Initially, it was the simple failure to give both parties — the shooter and the deceased — equal benefits of doubt here. Your gut says that kid attacked Zimmerman, and that’s coloring everything you write.
Luis said we can’t know who was the aggressor, but you even engaged that and immediately challenged his description of Zimmerman “confronting” the kid.
However, thanks to the released 911 call we have a pretty solid picture of Zimmerman’s immediate frame of mind prior to shooting that kid — that he thought the kid was — and I quote — “an asshole” and that he was “getting away” like they always do.
We also can hear him literally *running* after the kid — hot pursuit with a gun, as if he were a cop doing his job.
After that, we have hearsay and sketchy evidence about what happened next, partially because civil twilight ended about a half-hour before the actual incident started.
So there’s not really much benefit of the doubt available to Zimmerman in his known actions immediately prior to the shooting, and that was Luis’ point about his culpability in unnecessarily putting himself in a position to use deadly force (just like that guy in Louisiana did in 1992).
You tried to bullshit that away too but I think Luis did a good job explaining to you why you were wrong on that.
If you cannot … what purpose is there in talking to you? What could it accomplish?)
There is no purpose here of course. This is just a dead-end thread between two anonymous blog commenters that no one else is going to read.
If you are in fact not a racist shithead, then of course I would apologize, but my second rationale for believing you are a racist shithead is that, in this thread, you have yet to say something a racist shithead would not say.
“Are you a racist shithead?”
You will never, ever be able to conceive of how little the color someone is born matters to me.
I did not ‘challenge’ his description of Zimmerman ‘confronting’ Martin. I asked a question. You seriously are simply incapable of comprehending the concept of trying to understand other views, aren’t you?
“you have yet to say something a racist shithead would not say.”
I have to say, I don’t really hang out with racists, but I rather doubt they go to liberal websites and try to get your viewpoint on things, while carefully attempting to avoid argument. (that didn’t turn out so good, did it?)
But of course, you are just hiding behind your magic word again, aren’t you?
You want to know my agenda for all this? I am offended.
I am offended that a major news channel faked evidence to make it sound like Zimmerman was racist.
I am offended that another major news channel edited an aranged graphics to hide video evidence of Zimmermans injuries.
I am offended that damn near EVERY news organization published lies about both of their sizes to make it look like a complete miss match.
I am offended they still regulary lie and say Zimmerman got out of his car after he was told not to.
I am offended that they still lie and add all sorts of embellishments to the girlfriend testimony that is not what was released.
My sense of basic decency is offended. If he did this horrible thing, why so many lies? How can justice ever be served by so many lies?
It cannot.
But it generate a shitload of ratings. Massive ‘click through’ revenue. And if that leads to riots? So much the better. Even more ratings.
Think this is about Zimmerman?
Everyone remembers Rodney King. Can you name even ONE of the 53 people who died in the riots without google?
This whole thing is a travesty. And I am afraid people are going to die for goddamn TV ratings. One man has already been crippled. And the people who die in the riots? Mostly aren’t white. Since color matters souch to you.
that a major news channel faked evidence to make it sound like Zimmerman was racist.
We already know that Zimmerman’s thoughts that day were patently racist thanks to the 911 recording.
He pegged Trayvon as yet another “asshole” and assumed he didn’t belong in his complex, and was going to “get away”.
Based on what? The way he was looking at him? Well, how the hell was Trayvon supposed to respond to some creep trailing him in his SUV?
Zimmerman fucked up in applying his prejudices that day. That’s racist, though to be fair it goes deeper than that.
Had Trayvon not dressed like a street thug — like a kid who belonged in Sanford and not the urban Miami area (I see Lake Forest FL is 20% black) he’d probably still be alive since Zimmerman wouldn’t have keyed on him like he did.
Like a good liberal, I can see both sides of this issue.
If you’re talking about the NBC error, they didn’t fake any evidence. They elided a gap in the transcript, taking Zimmerman’s words out of context.
If you’re biased against the media, like all conservatives are these days, your gut feeling will be that this was intentional.
As for the rest of your blather about your being offended as a conservative, I could care less.
Good day.
This is what a lot of people overlook. Seriously, Trayvon was a kid walking home. He was talking on the phone, not on drugs. He had a hoodie on because is was raining, and that’s what hoodies are for. He was doing nothing wrong.
Zimmerman’s whole focus on Martin’s walking and looking at houses was racist–commonly referred to as “profiling,” something a lot of people do but what is most serious when the profiler has a gun. Seriously, I’ve done what Trayvon did tons of times when I was a kid in my Bay Area neighborhood–not talking on a phone, but walking home and looking at houses.
Trayvon did not do anything criminal, nor did he act criminal. Zimmerman saw the hoodie, saw the skin color, and concluded that this guy was a thug; everything else was a result of that conclusion.
Something important to remember is that racism is not just Klan members and White Supremacists; the majority of racism today is based on assumptions most people think of as innocent or fleeting. I’ve seen non-blacks meet black people who are quite mild-mannered and normal, and come away saying the felt “confronted,” “threatened,” or “intimidated.” And these same people would be incredibly offended if they were told that their impressions were the result of racial stereotypes and prejudice–both because they are unaware of the incorrectness of the impressions, and because they imagine racism only comes from people who hate people of color.
Think about this: why didn’t Zimmerman, upon seeing Martin, verify anything he felt? Why not at least roll down the window and ask, “You need help?” or “Do you live around here?” or even “Rainy day, huh?”
Instead, on an empty street, he parked his SUV for no reason but to sit there staring at this kid, like some kind of stalker or something. What do you think Trayvon thought? Seriously, you’re a black kid on a street walking home and some angry-looking light-skinned guy slowly pulls up across the road in his SUV and stops there and just stares at you.
You’re not going to get creeped out by that?
Trayvon had a LOT better reason to be unnerved by Zimmerman than the other way around.
This I disagree with. OK, had Trayvon been dressed in gang garb to the nines, wearing clothes that gave an unmistakable impression–that might create a reason for suspicion and suspicion alone. But a hoodie? Hell, no. Really, that is in fact like saying “the way she was dressed, she was asking to be raped.” There was nothing wrong with what he was wearing, period.
Troy, I know you’re not trying to say it was Trayvon’s fault, but I don’t like any insinuation even remotely saying that the way he was dressed got him killed. I know that you will probably agree that it was all on Zimmerman, but it’s important to state it in that manner. Not “had Trayvon not dressed like a thug,” but “had Zimmerman not seen a black man in a hoodie and immediately assumed he was a thug.”
Even were he dressed “like a street thug,” that still would not warrant an armed man chasing him down. Now, had he been seen breaking into a house or something, that could be different (though Zimmerman should not have done anything but call the police even in that situation), but just looking a certain way while walking down the street? That’s now enough to have an armed vigilante run you down?
I have been stopped by too many Japanese cops and accused of stealing my own bicycle–i.e., biking while white–for me to accept the idea that the way you look in your own neighborhood is an appropriate reason to assume criminality.
Seriously, was Martin–and every young black man, for that matter–supposed to adhere to a dress code for people of his skin tone?
No, I simply do not accept that.
Even were he dressed “like a street thug,” that still would not warrant an armed man chasing him down.
What I was kinda getting at there is if Trayvon had been “Trevor” and white, and dressed the same (assumedly, we actually don’t have any info on exactly what Trayvon was wearing) urban style, or if he had been black and dressed less in that style, Zimmerman would arguably have reacted differently — I don’t think Zimmerman’s crazy, just someone fed up with crime in the area and trying to fight back.
But that’s where Zimmerman’s faulty racial prejudice came in, and what black men face every day in this country.
FWIW, here’s a photo taken in February of Trayvor:
http://i.imgur.com/2zzCs.jpg
And we can agree that living in Japan for years gives one some small taste of how it feels to be profiled for being different and an out-group that is perceived to be higher-risk. I felt it, but in a small way compared to the reality of our broken socio-economic system in the US.
Seriously, was Martin–and every young black man, for that matter–supposed to adhere to a dress code for people of his skin tone?
If we assume Trayvon didn’t actually assault Zimmerman out of the blue like the defense is alleging, and Zimmerman is not some sort of murderer, this kind of incident is going to happen when some weird confluence of events comes together, just like the Hattori case.
But in this putative case of a situation somehow escalating out of control, how often will an (again, putatively) innocent kid like Trayvon get killed in similar circumstances? Once a decade? That’s not much of a risk for black people to worry about.
Apparently there are 36 SYG-blessed homicides in Florida per year on average, so on the whole I think this law is arguably protecting many more people than it’s harming. (People who lawfully and rightfully exercise their court-given 2nd amendment rights to plug people in true self-defense deserve protection from wrongful prosecution, too.)
At any rate, a black kid like Trayvon *not* dressing in the urban style among his peers would encounter much more hazard to his person no doubt.
This event is just like that ‘glitch in the Matrix’, an opportunity to maybe do a reality check or at least contemplate how things are so screwed up at so many levels in this country.
As your life in relatively crime-free Tokyo should inform you, in the scheme of things, concealed carry and SYG is not a core problem that needs fixing. Expanded 2nd amendment rights are just bandaids on bigger socio-economic problems, and until we fix those larger problems all this other stuff is something of a tragic sideshow.
No doubt, the sensationalist media is, for the most part, a collection of assholes. The “fucking coon” read was baseless (could have been that, could have been something else), but when I heard many pushing that story, I was disgusted (especially with Lawrence O’Donnell for his certainty when it was anything but).
This one I think you’re wrong or misled on; I had not heard of this, so I did a search, and the only thing I could find was claims that ABC released a raw version of the police station tape that did not seem to show any injuries, and then later revealed a cleaned-up version that did seem to show injuries. I did not see any evidence of “arranged graphics” to hide it, nor did the subsequent release by the same channel seem to indicate that they were hiding anything. Instead, it comes across as raw vs. adjusted video–and frankly, the adjusted video could be just as misleading as the raw video. If there are no photos by anyone from Zimmerman at that time, neither version is conclusive.
You missed a few. Spike Lee reprehensibly re-posting what he believed to be the Zimmerman’s home address (something I felt was akin to putting a contract out on Zimmerman, not made any better by the fact that he got the address wrong).
Also the “expert analysis” of the 911 tapes “conclusively” “proving” that it was not Zimmerman’s voice. My father is an forensic acoustic expert, and one thing he always told me is that there are a lot of grandstanding idiots out there. The voice on the tape was nowhere near enough to make the distinction, and the fact that he was using the “same” software as the FBI, CIA, and NSA was total BS, in that it makes no difference who uses it, the claim was bullshit. Yet the networks ran with that as well, without checking the “experts” they were quoting.
These networks are trying to sell any sensationalist story. I would assume that ABC did their two-versions video stunt for one of two reasons: (1) they simply showed the video in the order they got it, or (2) if there was any attempt at deception, it was because they wanted to inflame one side and then the other for the purpose of ratings.
All of these news channels are disgusting for the same reason: they will say or do anything for ratings and money. Fox News is disgusting for a different reason, in that they always slant to one side–motivated not just by money, but by a political agenda.
But I do not see the other major networks as being intentional racist or reverse racist. They are sensationalist. They go nuts when a little white girl goes missing by say nothing when a little black girl goes missing, not because they are necessarily racist, but because they know what their audience is more likely to respond to and tune in to. I am not saying it is a virtue or a lack of sin, it is simply what they are.
I agree with you in that this disgusts me. I have always believed that someone should do their damned best to build a decent news channel–only I am also pragmatist enough to know that the ratings would probably bury it within months. People don’t seem to want good, clean, clear, reliable news. We get what we ask for.
It does not, however, change the basics of what we know happened. It does not change the fact that recent gun-friendly laws open the door for and even encourage vigilantism. It does not change the fact that Zimmerman was able to buy a gun and masquerade as a neighborhood watch captain/member without people in the neighborhood knowing his background, and without him having been trained properly for the role. It does not change the fact that Zimmerman saw an innocent black kid in a hoodie and assumed that he was a criminal on drugs casing houses. It does not change the fact that Zimmerman, in his race-tinged vigilante state of mind, probably presented himself as creepy and dangerous to Trayvon, probably what prompted Trayvon to move from the clubhouse and perhaps picking up his pace afterwards. It does not change the fact that Zimmerman, armed and in a position where he should have known better, disregarded police advice and tried to chase the kid down.
And it does not change the fact that a man who should not have had a gun, much less should have been chasing down people in the neighborhood, a man who made a judgment almost certainly based on race, a man who stupidly left his vehicle, making the confrontation possible and even likely, shot and killed that innocent kid. I don’t give a crap how “big” Trayvon was, I don’t care what he was wearing. Neither of those points have any relevance to what happened.
Media spew is one serious problem in America, that is to be sure. However, racism is just as great a problem.
Red herring. We don’t remember them because there were 53 of them, and it was some time ago. Everyone remembers the Ayatollah Khomeini, but without Google, can you name any of the Iranian hostages? Everyone remembers Timothy McVeigh, but do you remember the names of any of the 168 victims? How many of John Wayne Gacy’s victims names do you remember?
Remembering the name, as you can see from my examples here, is not indicative of whom was favored by the media slant.
Unless, in your vague, tangential assertion, you meant something else.
*and Zimmerman is not some sort of murderer
in the colloquial not technical sense
The voice on the tape was nowhere near enough to make the distinction
I haven’t heard that tape and I don’t want to, but I also rejected that out of hand since I do know that under the life & death stress of a street fight, voices are going to sound weird.
What the hell actually happened between them is going to forever be a mystery to me. Trayvon wasn’t the cherubic kid in the media’s photos, he was a young adult with his own problems to work out, and it’s possible he chose the wrong guy to pick a fight with.
But counterbalancing this is Trayvon’s SYG rights too. It is also possible that for all Trayvon knew this guy was a pedo kidnapper and if he didn’t fight back he’d be in some dungeon that night, Silence of the Lambs style.
Louis, ABC went far beyond sensationalism when they edited Zimmermans police recording to make it racist. They CLAIM to have fired the person who did it.
Troy, you say his 911 call is blatantly racist. I think maybe you watch ABC. seriously, go read the transcript. Unless you think ‘asshole’ us a racist term, there is nothing overtly racist in it.
As far ad less over racism? How do we know? You are really making sine drastic accusations based on very little.
Allow me to present an alternate theory.
we know for a certainty Trayvon was talking to his GF on a hands-free earpiece. If you read the transcript, Zimmerman is actually quite clear that he thinks Martin is acting weird. He seems to have trouble articulating exactly how.
Have you ever watched someone talk on a hands-free from a distance? The move their head around, talk to the air, gesture. They look just like s crazy or stoned person.
What if it’s just that simple?
Crap! NBC, not ABC, was the network that faked the recordings. And yes, editing something to distort it that drastically is properly described as ‘faked’ in my judgement.
You see, Jon, this is a reason why I find it hard to carry on a conversation with you. Against my better judgment (yeah, I broke down and did what I knew was stupid, but hoped against hope that maybe you’d at least try), I spent time looking into your vague claims and more time constructing the post, in which I laid out a series of considered points, addressed every major point you had made, agreed with your points where I thought there was merit, and even went beyond and presented you with points you had neglected.
Did you cover all, most, or even a few of the points (e.g., the details of the ABC video; the multiple points concerning sensationalism and how it worked; the many points regarding Zimmerman’s behavior and the situation generally; the point about remembering names) which I laid out? Did you respond in kind?
Hell, no. You didn’t even bother to get the name of the damned network right, much less spell my name correctly. ABC presented the video. NBC had the producer who screwed up. Get the basics right at least, few chrissakes.
And yeah, the producer screwed up. And I don’t doubt for a second that he was fired. Why? Because he screwed up and badly embarrassed the network. What, you think the network, as a matter of intentional policy, ordered that edit, as if it would not be instantly recognized and exposed? Please. You imply something that makes no sense whatsoever. And again, even in your single point, you are confusingly vague–if they went “far beyond sensationalism,” that means they transgressed into something much worse. Like what, specifically? Shooting innocent kids?
Moreover, the NBC editing story is being used as a “Dan Rather” moment, like Hilary Rosen’s (not an Obama “advisor” or “strategist,” no relation whatsoever to the campaign, and thoroughly condemned by everyone in the Obama camp) comment is being used: as a means to distract people from the mountain of evidence and attempt to use a trifling side-show to dismiss grievous wrongs. Why does it not surprise me that you’re fixated on this while ignoring the facts laid out?
And then–surprise!–you shuffle over to a new point, expecting attention to be drawn to that. Exactly as I pointed out your tactics as being previously. The exact same bullshit–no work, no respect, no effort, dancing around the point, changing the topic, never conceding a point, etc. etc. In short, you continue to behave like an ass.
Jon, expect no respect whatsoever if you so flagrantly use such pathetic, dishonest “discussion” tactics in response to considered debate. Blather on; I’m moving on, and hopefully learned my lesson for the last time.
Ummm. I corrected the network name. Maybe you missed that?
And I have a 10 minute break and an iPhone. Responding to each bullet point is not an option.
I was quite pleased to see your response, and I enjoyed reading it. I chose to engage within the time I had available.
I entirely failed to understand that this would appear dismissive or evasive. We have very different styles. You prefer broad, multi-point posts, I prefer to adress things in smaller chunks.
I shall try to compose a more complete response that addresses your entire post this evening.
My apologies for the offense I have given. I shall endeavor to do better in the future.
(oh, and sorry about the name thing. Believe that I know what it’s like)
OK, so to respond to your earlier post above:
It seems we are essentially in agreement regarding the coverage of the case. The edit to make it sound like he said the kid was suspicious because he was black is so bad I would just about consider it incitement. I would certainly expect it to be legally actionable.
The ‘fucking ????s” controversy was stranger. I heard versions that were clearly one, and versions that were clearly the other. I think people were ‘cleaning up’ the tapes. It seems we agree that it cannot be said for certain which it is, and the prosecutor is going with ‘punks’ on the affidavit.
The video of his head injuries is more marginal. The original (embedded here http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/) places the “ABCnews exclusive’ graphic right on top of his head for much of the video. Regularly, that’s not such a big thing, but when you are specifically showing it to prove the condition of his head? Pretty hinky, but not in the same class, I agree.
It seems we all agree the audio is of limited use, although it may explain why the prosecutor went for murder 2. If it is Zimmerman begging for 45 seconds before finally using his gun, that’s gonna be self defense. If it’s Martin begging for 45 seconds before being gunned down, it’s murder. Not a lot of room
in between.
———
I’m going to respond out of order here because I want to keep the media stuff together.
What I meant about Rodney King is that 53 people died in the protest of the beating of a guy who is, quite frankly, a scumbag who is going to kill someone sooner or later. I don’t see how that helped.
In the Martin case, they have beat the racism / profiling drum however they could to drum up as much anger as possible for the sake of ratings. And there is a better than fair chance people will die because of it. And no one will remember them at all.
I submit that trying to fight the sensationalism is something that needs to be done, before more people die.
———
To return to your post,
‘without knowing his background’
I think you are overstating Zimmerman’s history. As far as I know, he’s got his-&-hers non-violent* restraining orders, pushing a cop while drunk, and an ex-coworker who says he got out of hand. All from 7-8 years ago. For a 28 year old, that’s a lifetime. This doesn’t really say much of anything about who he
is now. (*If it was violent, he would not be allowed to own a gun. Lautenburg ammendment, Federal law.)
‘assumed he was a criminal casing houses’
If I understand correctly, there have been a rather ridiculous number of burglaries in that neighborhood in the last year. Enough to justify calling in anyone at all suspicious. Had it never gone beyong calling it in, this would not have been controversial.
‘race-tinged vigilante state of mind’.
Your evidence that his state of mind was ‘race-tinged’ seems to be based purely on the fact that Martin was black and America is racist. If you listen to the police recording, he was not even certain Martin was black at first. ‘Vigilante state of mind’ could be supported by his muttering ‘assholes always
get away’. But I don’t think you have achieved the level of ‘fact’ here. He sounds annoyed and exasperated to me, not enraged.
‘presented himself as creepy and dangerous’
This I agree with absolutely. I think Martin was scared of him, and it was a reasonable response to be so. I think he swung wide from the direct path home to get further away from the creepy guy. I do not see any indication he stopped or hid anywhere, I think he just detoured.
‘chase the kid down’
Here I think you are placing too much certainty on supposition. His claim that he was just trying to see where the kid went to report it to the police when they got there is believable enough to deserve consideration. Observe and report. Also, you believe you can hear him running in the recording, I
think you are mistaken. I hear no cadence in his voice. People. Running. Talk. Like. This. In. time. with. their. steps. I do not know what the whooshing sounds that are in the background are. They are not breaths, at least a couple times they occur as he is talking. Was it windy? I really don’t know.
‘stupidly left his vehicle’
Stupid? It certainly seems so in retrospect. From his shoes at the time? I would use the term unwise myself.
‘made the confrontation possible’
Many, many things made that confrontation possible. You mention before that he changed his role when he got out of the car. But you are basing that on him getting out to confront or play cop. If he was really just trying to observe then he was NOT changing roles, just venues, if you see my point.
‘I don’t give a crap how big Trayvon was’
It is relevant to the extent that relative size was used as proof Zimmerman must have started the violence. Now that no one is using that argument anymore, doesn’t matter so much.
———–
‘innocent kid’
This deserves it’s own section.
Up to the point where they spoke to each other, neither had broken any laws. Then, someone did. We don’t know who. I believe Trayvon did, because fear / frustration / pretty girl listening would be enough to make a significant portion of 17 year old football players deck a creepy guy following them.
Normal behaviour, if not entirely legal. For Zimmerman to have started it so suddenly would require that he be crazy or evil. Just seems less likely.
Had it ended there, we would never have heard about it.
But it didn’t. It kept going.
It kept going for long enough that someone had time to freak out, call 911, and get an operator in time to record about 45 seconds of screaming for help before the shot was fired.
That’s not normal. I cannot think of a good explanation for WHY it would go on so long.
We know Zimmerman ended up with a bloody (broken?) nose, a split lip, and a couple cuts on the back of his head. (I give this 99% chance of being true. To be false multiple cops & paramedics would have to lie, plus the video seems to support it, and he says he went to a doctor the next day, so there will be evidence. For all that to be fake would be a stretch)
We know Martin showed no injuries at all, except, of course, a single gunshot to the chest. (It occurs to me that you may not realize this, but the ‘single shot’ part is a bit odd. People rarely shoot only once. There was a rumor going around the kid actually had a hand on the gun, which kept it from cycling; don’t know if there is any truth to it.)
If it really was Zimmerman yelling for help, Martin went far enough beyond reasonable that ‘innocent kid’ does not apply any more. Punching some creepy guy and running away is one thing. Beating on him for another minute is another thing. And that other thing is called a ‘violent felony’.
———–
I know you view my discussion of the events of that night as a distraction from the larger discussion of gun laws and their consequences, but I must disagree.
If this is a case of a mall-ninja killing a kid to satisfy his cop fantasies, it says one thing about the effects of gun laws.
If it is a case of a guy defending himself against someone bashing his brains out on the pavement it says something totally different.
———-
You say he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Why? What had he ever done to disqualify himself?
And how would this story have been different if hitting his head had killed Zimmerman or put him into a coma?
———-
OK, I think I responded to all your points. Is this the kind of discussion you are looking for? It’s hard to set aside the block of time, but I’m game to try.
(pardon the odd quoting method, I am reading your post on the phone and writing the response on my computer, so no cut and paste. For ‘life happens’ reasons my internet situation is screwy)