Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[aerius]

I was directly responding to this:

It's about as relevant to the case as Zimmerman's prior arrest and dozens of police phone-ins, which is to say it isn't. But what this tells me is that neither person involved was a shining example of goodness & morality, both of them are somewhat questionable characters.

Which seems to make the claim that Martin being truant, missing classes, and possessing drug paraphernalia cancels out Zimmermans history of domestic violence and assault on a police officer. How fucking hard is this to comprehend?

Looks like you have a fucking reading comprehension problem. Here, let me highlight the relevant part for you and explain it to you using small words. Neither Zimmerman's nor Martin's prior behavior have any fucking relevance to the shooting. None at all. It's not stated nor implied anywhere that the acts are in any way equivalent or cancel out. All I'm saying is that neither of them is squeaky clean.

[Flagg]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

[TheHammer]

I took issue with his earlier statements that there was an eye witness that said "Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head".

Why? Just ebcause this witness wasn't at a press conference like the 2 nitwits you cited?

No I take issue because that's not what was said. The statement was false. They were an imagined interpretation by KS. Can I make that any more clear? Go back and read the actual quotes from the news account of the story.

Point being that these are actual people who can be found and talked to who are willing to testify to what they heard and saw. That is in contrast to this anonymous "John" that no one has found. When he shows up either on TV or in court where he's willing to attach his name, then his words will actually carry some weight.

Evidently John did talk to someone or we wouldn't know what he said at all. Earlier you were complaining it was a reporter. These women are more credible to you just ebcause they got on TV with all the attendant weeping and crying? What does being on TV have to do with credibility?

The reason the women have more credibility is that they have attached their names to this and are willing to go to court to testify to what they saw. John has not been heard from and doesn't seem to exist outside of that solitary news report. So yes I will give more weight to people we can actually find and talk to about what they saw over an anonymous source who has seemingly dropped off the face of the earth.

Look dipshit, don't jump in to the middle of this when you clearly don't know what the fuck the issue was, namely that prior to quoting this "witness" that no one can seem to locate, KS made statements to the effect that "A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman RAINING BLOWS down on him". A statement that in fact was not made to anyone by anyone.

Semantic nitpicking. He later quoted the witness exactly. So what if the exact words weren't "raining blows"? I have never known KS to lie.

Is not semantic nitpicking. "Raining blows down on someone's head" is very fucking different from being in a grappling struggle with someone who happens to be on top. Either scenario would be likely, and had KS said that "if this interpretation is true" I would have been ok with it. However passing off one's imagined interpretation of events as a witness accounting is extremely dishonest.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I took issue with his earlier statements that there was an eye witness that said "Martin was straddling Zimmerman and raining blows down upon his head".

Did you miss the post where I conceded that? I responded to you because you in turn did exactly what I did...you said "Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms".

You can't "concede" a point then continue to harp on "well when someone says 'beating up' then I assume blah blah blah" and not expect a response. My comments were mean to drive home the point that "beating up the other guy" could mean a variety of things and your inserted account was misleading.

Point being that these are actual people who can be found and talked to who are willing to testify to what they heard and saw. That is in contrast to this anonymous "John" that no one has found. When he shows up either on TV or in court where he's willing to attach his name, then his words will actually carry some weight.

The police found John. There are three witnesses listed in the police report you cited. Two female (the I heard witnesses) and one male.

I've not found any police report with "johns" accounting of events in it. If you can produce one please do so. The one and only place it appears is in a news story. "John's" last name may as well be "Doe". Until he comes forward either in public or in court then I don't consider that accounting to be reliable.

Look dipshit, don't jump in to the middle of this when you clearly don't know what the fuck the issue was, namely that prior to quoting this "witness" that no one can seem to locate, KS made statements to the effect that "A witness said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman RAINING BLOWS down on him". A statement that in fact was not made to anyone by anyone.

And look dispshit don't continue beating a conceded remark and have issue when I call you on doing the exact same thing.

If you pay attention you will note that this was a response to your partner in crime SVPD who chose to belabor the point.

What part of "I'm dropping this irrelevent point" did you not understand?

What part of the conceding the "raining blows down" part did you not understand?

Again, comments not addressed to you. Please pay closer attention.

[SVPD]

I was directly responding to this:

It's about as relevant to the case as Zimmerman's prior arrest and dozens of police phone-ins, which is to say it isn't. But what this tells me is that neither person involved was a shining example of goodness & morality, both of them are somewhat questionable characters.

Which seems to make the claim that Martin being truant, missing classes, and possessing drug paraphernalia cancels out Zimmermans history of domestic violence and assault on a police officer. How fucking hard is this to comprehend?

Because it isn't a claim of "cancelling out" anything.. assuming the media is even telling the truth about Zimmerman's history which is becoming more and more questionable. It's a claim that both of them have things in their past that are less than stellar independently of one another. We already knew Zimmerman was an idiot as soon as we found out that he likes to play cop and follow "suspicious" people around (although evidently the media likes exaggerating that too with the claim that he found a little kid suspicious) but we were initially told that Martin was a regular choir boy. In point of fact it seems that he was in his share of teenage trouble. That doesn't somehow make him a little gangbanger or anything like that, but it does cast doubt on all the claims of how he would never be involved in anything whatsoever.. as if those claims were relevant in the first place. All criminals have a first offense, and in any case nobody comes with a a sign on their back that says "good kid.. would not do anything bad.. do not call police".

[SVPD]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes.

Even if both of these assertions were not highly questionable, it still is not relevant. The most violent criminal in the country can be the victim of a violent assault. The biggest racist in the world can still have a valid reason for suspecting that a member of a race he despises is engaged in criminal activity. What matters is what Zimmerman did.

Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

No, Martin's is irrelevant because it's irrelevant. There are plenty of people in jail for murder that never committed a crime before in their life. What matters is how he behaved in this particular circumstance, not how we think he's likely to behave based on his history.

[Anguirus]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Bingo. I'm quite honestly surprised that this thread has lowered itself to the level of quoting the "dirt" that certain parties are "digging up" about a 17 year old dead boy. There's simply nothing else to say about that, Flagg summed it right up.

If you want to say Zimmerman isn't racist, fine, but the violent history is simply a matter of fact. Is that the one reason to damn him, no, but at the very least it is potentially relevant and not some masturbatory "he got what he deserved cause he was on the pot" Drudge campaign.

Sadly the dead do not have the protection of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" than Zimmerman does. At least not in the Miami Herald.

Unspecified anecdotal evidence is not terribly convincing.

Sorry, I missed your statistics. I don't keep a list of all the black people I've ever spoken to and I didn't take notes while I was at it. You want to read some of the authors I refer to? Click on my link above.

By this definition, it is then factually untrue that society demonizes young black men. There is a significant pro-Martin movement.

Here's the thing. "Society" generally doesn't only do one thing in regard to an issue.

The relevant clause was this. You write: "I could also point out that society quickly demonizes anyone or anything that is proclaimed "racist" with no discussion of whether that definition of racism is reasonable." I responded that this was facially untrue, because not only are WE having that discussion, so are others in the mainstream. If you wish to make the point that many people disagree on many thing, sure. If you want to have the argument that it is impossible to make any general statements about US or other societies, I disagree and I refer to you, well, the field of sociology.

Society does demonize behavior that is perceived as racist. In my opinion this is right and proper, just as society properly demonizes murderers. Now there are problems associated with the "court of public opinion," hence my comment about the jury.

I do not see that "systematic inequality" is racism at all. This is in fact, a method of defining racism that ensures it will never be dealt with; inequality is simply called "racism"; and the underlying causes of economics, education and such things are ignored in favor of simply screaming about racism.

No. The "underlying causes" are of great interest to many policymakers (well, the ones who aren't arch-conservatives). However, while race is a significant indicator of poverty, poverty still does not exclude race as a predictor of incarceration, sentences, public school performance, etc.

Basically, this is a strawman. Nothing I have said or, to my knowledge, any progressive has said, supports replacing economic and educational reforms with some sort of magic anti-racist policy.

Thre is not any "lack of factors". Stupidity, paranoia and general busybody behavior on the part of Zimmerman, combined with the general poor judgement of even well-behaved teens, especially in a crisis, are more than sufficient without race being a factor at all.

Yes, Zimmerman may have been an unusual paranoiac, but it was Martin's risk factors I'm referring to.

Possibly, we should. Frankly, until using the word "racism" ceases to be a meaningful form of discussion it is impossible to have one. It simply wraps the disucssion up in defensiveness and denial on one side and outrage and tilting at windmills on the other.

You never say which side is which...we'll discuss what you like, fine, I don't have the time or the resources to hit up the Coliseum right now with "WHAT IS RACISM?" If you want to convince me that race is not relevant to this case, go ahead and try, but you aren't making much headway.

Your only excuse to fear him would be your own sterotyping, prejudice, and bigotry against white police officers.

Prejudice, stereotyping, and bigotry don't hurt the man with the gun. It is history that is at work here. Actually, not only history. Why are blacks vastly more likely to be arrested, despite committing crimes at roughly the same rate as whites? Why do they receive tougher sentences? Is the justice system as a whole exerting some sort of conscious, cold-blooded, punitive effort against the black community? Or can we admit that US racism is simply pervasive and endemic, and is unconsciously applied at multiple levels?

If you want attitudes to change, they must be changed by effort, not excuse-making.

A lot of this "fear" is simply a tactic to divert attention from why the officer was dealing with them in the first place, and it's really easy to make up a story of anything you want on the internet.

Yes. Why should I trust you, and not them? Why do I trust both you and them? Why don't I mistrust both you and them and just throw up my hands and cry out that nothing is to be done?

Because denial doesn't help.

You don't have any incredible privilege. For every privilege you have there is a scholarship, program, fund, or other way in which a minority can get something you can't. That's not unfair; minorities generally do suffer socioeconomic disadvantage, but this myth of "incredible privilege" is something left over from the 1960s.

No, it isn't. Everything doesn't equal out just because you say it does. The existence of various classes and their various privileges does not preclude white privilege being the biggest and most influential of all.

Privilege ended in the 1960s, yet there are more black men incarcerated than in college...

I'd also point out that if YOU get shot in suspicious circumstances by a Zimmerman, or a black man, there will be no national outrage for you.

Who cares?

1) I'd be dead. Martin doesn't care about national attention, he's dead.
2) I think there would be a little interest because it is still "random asshole guns down dude in gated community." I think there would be even more focus on "stand your ground."
3) Would it have happened at all? Blacks are nine times more likely than whites to be gunned down, though they make up 16% of the national population compared to 64% non-Hispanic white.

This means that it's "racist" if whites have it better, on average, than minorities regardless of what changes in attitudes, laws, or policies have been made.

Yes.

This is precisely the sort of outrageous definition of racism that makes discussion impossible, or rather the habit some people have of calling any contesting of this definition to be "Racism" in and of itself.

Hardly. Start with the proposition that the races are mentally and physically equivalent, which is about as scientifically supported as it gets. Control for other factors. If race has a major effect on outcomes, then that's what I'd call a racist society.

You want the game stacked against you because you were born a certain color? No? Then you agree that's a Bad Thing.

I also notice you say "at least". What else would you like to see? When being white or male isn't a predictor of economic success, what else is necessary.

I was leaving myself a bit of wiggle room for other factors of "success," but basically that would be the big one. Since, naturally, blacks and whites could have equal economic success yet blacks could still suffer in the justice system.

You are not going to solve problems of unconscious judging by screaming about "racism". Rather, socioeconomic and educational issues have to be addressed so that the unconscious basis disappears.

This is a false dichotomy. We propose the same basic solution to the same basic problem, only you don't want me to actually TALK about the problem.

If we don't talk about the problem, we forget what we're trying to solve.

It is not any privilege or luxury, however. This is sheer nonsense. If you're white and poor or unemployed or whatever, you have it just as bad as a minority - maybe worse since no one will be talking about how racist it is that you're in such straights. Disadvantage is to the individual, not to the group. A rich black man is not automatically less rich because he's black, or less rich because there are a disproportionate numebr of poor black men.

No, it's not nonsense. You've just discovered different types of privilege. Rich people have it awesome.

Systematic disadvantage that is applied by race is wrong, and I believe it behooves our country to make strides towards correction.

Racism is NOT systematic inequality based on race. Racism is actions that discriminate against a particular race AND which serve no other overriding purpose.

OR IS IT? I told you from the start that this was using my definition. It is derived from discussions I have had with my sociology professor and from participation in the skeptical community online. I tacitly agreed with you that the definitional issue is tricky, so I wasn't attempting to force you to accept mine, just elucidate it clearly.

If I might ask, why bother with the second clause in your own definition? Strikes me as being restrictive. There is always a "practical" reason/excuse for racial discrimination. "I wish that black people wouldn't live here because I don't want my property values to go down." "I think Arabs should live somewhere else because I'm afraid of terrorists." What would fail to qualify as an overriding purpose?

Systematic inequality in this country has its roots in racism of the past, but it isn't racism in and of itself. In fact, that's circular. "Racism, is systemic inequality. Systemic inequality is caused by racism. How do we know? Well, because the races are systematically unequal and that's racist!"

What's circular? Racism can have historical causes. Doesn't make it right. Racism (in society) is systematic inequality that is based on, and explained by, race. We know it's there because we can look and see it.

I can't tell what relationship your word salad has to anything I've written.

For a different (excellent) definition of "racism" on a more individual-based level see this

It utterly ignores the underlying socieoeconomic problems in favor of ranting and screaming and ensures that the systematic equality will never be addressed.

No, it doesn't. You used that false dichotomy again. Justify it.

[aerius]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Wrong. Zimmerman could be a known KKK member who feeds black teens feet first through a woodchipper and it still wouldn't have any bearing on the current case. Because this case, if it goes to trial, isn't about whether Zimmerman is a racist fuck who tailed a black kid and shot him. It's to determine if the shooting itself was justified self-defence or not. All that really matters is what happened between when the altercation started and when it ended. Anything that didn't happen on that day is going to get tossed out. That's the way your legal system works.

[SVPD]

No I take issue because that's not what was said. The statement was false. They were an imagined interpretation by KS. Can I make that any more clear? Go back and read the actual quotes from the news account of the story.

I did. You're nitpicking the semantics of KS's paraphrase. KS later provided the actual quote, in quotation marks.

Tell you what. You lay on your back and I'll sit on your chest and start hitting you in the face. Then you tell me how important it is whether I'm "raining blows" on you or just "hitting" you.

The reason the women have more credibility is that they have attached their names to this and are willing to go to court to testify to what they saw. John has not been heard from and doesn't seem to exist outside of that solitary news report. So yes I will give more weight to people we can actually find and talk to about what they saw over an anonymous source who has seemingly dropped off the face of the earth.

Bullshit. As KS pointed out, John was located and cited in the police report you linked. Stating their names in public does not, in any way, give the women any more credibility; neither does the fact that they were on TV with the victim's family. If anything that undermines their credibility since they're pretty clearly taking sides and doing it based on assumptions about what they heard but didn't see.

This is the exact quote from John: "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said."

You need to provide some positive evidence that John is actually lying, or that John himself and his testimony is actually a fabrication. The fact that two women have been more comfortable coming out in public is not it. It is especially not it given the threats being made against Zimmerman; John may very well fear that he'll be attacked if his anonymity is compromised.

Is not semantic nitpicking. "Raining blows down on someone's head" is very fucking different from being in a grappling struggle with someone who happens to be on top. Either scenario would be likely, and had KS said that "if this interpretation is true" I would have been ok with it. However passing off one's imagined interpretation of events as a witness accounting is extremely dishonest.

You have clearly never actually been in a situation where someone was on top of you in a grappling struggle. If you'd even been in one in trainging, you'd realize how easy it is for a person on top to start hitting you in the head if they want to; actual ground-fighting techniques taught as basics to people not doing ground fighting as a long-term martial art (like, you know, law enforcement officers) emphasize keeping someone out of your mount or getting them out once they are there. A "grappling struggle" on the ground is generally about the guy underneath trying to block blows from the person on top unless either or both of them are skilled ground fighters and trying some more advanced technique - not the case here, and not the case in most fights. If a guy is in your mount, the difference between grappling with him and him raining blows on you is almost academic.. if he gets an arm loose where you can't control it, he can hit you right in the face, using the ground as an anvil and put someone out with a few solid shots, maybe even just one. He can beat you to death if you can't get out of that position.

You keep treating this like somehow being on the bottom is just a position you happen to be in like a high school wrestling match. That's not the case in a real fight. There are no referees, and there's no rule against punching someone. If you are not a skilled ground fighter, or do not have a considerable size AND strength advantage you do NOT want to ground fight someone.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was agreeing with that. What's the problem?

Sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought you had misinterpreted my post and were disagreeing with me. Sometimes the atmosphere in these threads makes everything feel more combative than it is, heh.

The problem is that you're using an overly narrow definition of "jumped him". People often use "jumped him" when they mean "shoved me", "took the first swing" or a multitude of other things.

Fair enough.

It;s a slang term and does not always mean "ambushed from behind." People like to use it because it carries connotations of ambush and makes them sound like a victim but it doesn't always mean that. If someone tells me their attacker "jumped them" my next interview question is "exactly what do you mean he did when you say he jumped you?"

While what you say is true, wasn't Zimmerman's testimony pretty specific that he was walking back to the car and Martin came from behind? (For some reason I can't find it now, I might be remembering it wrong ....)

-------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. Zimmerman could be a known KKK member who feeds black teens feet first through a woodchipper and it still wouldn't have any bearing on the current case. Because this case, if it goes to trial, isn't about whether Zimmerman is a racist fuck who tailed a black kid and shot him. It's to determine if the shooting itself was justified self-defence or not. All that really matters is what happened between when the altercation started and when it ended. Anything that didn't happen on that day is going to get tossed out. That's the way your legal system works.

This.

Also, I am increasingly questioning the media's portrayal of this whole thing.

[TheFeniX]

3) Though "stand your ground" may not be Zimmerman's defense, his story certainly reminds me of the "dead men tell no tales" critique of "stand your ground" by Florida's chief prosecutor.

Before the passage of "Stand your Ground" or "Castle Laws" almost anyone in law enforcement or legal would tell you "If you shoot someone, make sure he's dead. You do not want him testifying in court against you." Basically, "Dead men tell no tales." Prosecutors are probably complaining for the same reason cops complain about not being able to hold people while they wait for drug sniffing dogs: it makes their jobs more difficult.

You keep treating this like somehow being on the bottom is just a position you happen to be in like a high school wrestling match. That's not the case in a real fight. There are no referees, and there's no rule against punching someone. If you are not a skilled ground fighter, or do not have a considerable size AND strength advantage you do NOT want to ground fight someone.

Being mounted is not a fun place to be (3 meg GIF). Even an unskilled fighter can easily inflict deadly injury to someone if they end up in a mounted position. The person on the ground now only has the use of his arms and no leverage to stop blows. Honestly, if this was the actual position Zimmerman was in, rather than some instance of Martin standing over him, I'm surprised he could even draw his gun. Even undisciplined hammer-fists/masturbation punches could be lethal if you're on concrete rather than a nice soft training mat.

[Elfdart]

Are you fucking retarded? No one has made any such claim. The claim is solely that Martin is not quite as innocent as initially portrayed.

That's the same kind of bullshit you hear when someone smears a rape victim:

"Well, she sucked a guy's dick in high school, was caught drinking under age and therefore she's a whore who got what she deserved -oh, let me rephrase that! She wasn't quite the innocent victim she was made out to be."

[Flagg]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Wrong. Zimmerman could be a known KKK member who feeds black teens feet first through a woodchipper and it still wouldn't have any bearing on the current case. Because this case, if it goes to trial, isn't about whether Zimmerman is a racist fuck who tailed a black kid and shot him. It's to determine if the shooting itself was justified self-defence or not. All that really matters is what happened between when the altercation started and when it ended. Anything that didn't happen on that day is going to get tossed out. That's the way your legal system works.

You're talking legality, I'm talking factually.

[TheHammer]

No I take issue because that's not what was said. The statement was false. They were an imagined interpretation by KS. Can I make that any more clear? Go back and read the actual quotes from the news account of the story.

I did. You're nitpicking the semantics of KS's paraphrase. KS later provided the actual quote, in quotation marks.

Tell you what. You lay on your back and I'll sit on your chest and start hitting you in the face. Then you tell me how important it is whether I'm "raining blows" on you or just "hitting" you.

Are you intentionally being thick skulled? You have to be. "Raining down blows" evokes an image of relentless blasting away at someone's face where they might feel like their life was threatened where is "hitting" someone could be much less severe. In fact the quote from the witness doesn't even say he saw any blows thrown, simply that he saw one guy on top of the other. The follow up comment of "The one guy beating up the other guy" could mean that he actually saw punches, or simply that he felt the guy on top was "winning" the fight. If anyone can find this "john" then we could ask him to clarify.

The reason the women have more credibility is that they have attached their names to this and are willing to go to court to testify to what they saw. John has not been heard from and doesn't seem to exist outside of that solitary news report. So yes I will give more weight to people we can actually find and talk to about what they saw over an anonymous source who has seemingly dropped off the face of the earth.

Bullshit. As KS pointed out, John was located and cited in the police report you linked. Stating their names in public does not, in any way, give the women any more credibility; neither does the fact that they were on TV with the victim's family. If anything that undermines their credibility since they're pretty clearly taking sides and doing it based on assumptions about what they heard but didn't see.

This is the exact quote from John: "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said."

WRONG you stupid fuck. Maybe you should stop blindly backing up your buddy KS and check things out before you speak. KS is again speculating that one of the male witnesses was "John", however the names are all blacked out. We can guess at some of the witnesses based on their descriptions, however there were multiple male and female witnesses listed.

Further, the report I linked had NO witness statements in it. The "statement" from "john" that you just quoted was given to a reporter after the fact. It might be genuine, or it might all be bullshit. See, that's the thing about anonymous statements you have no way to vett the person giving the statement to make sure it is legit. One should thus always be skeptical of anonymous sources, especially when they contradict other named sources. IF John reappears and is willing to testify to what he saw it will carry more weight.

You need to provide some positive evidence that John is actually lying, or that John himself and his testimony is actually a fabrication. The fact that two women have been more comfortable coming out in public is not it. It is especially not it given the threats being made against Zimmerman; John may very well fear that he'll be attacked if his anonymity is compromised.

An anonymous statement to the press isn't fucking testimony. Further, the statements made aren't exactly clear on what he saw aside from two men struggling. Details would be extremely key in this case. Yes it is possible he exists and isn't coming forward because he's afraid of retaliation. If someone could provide the police report that has his statements TO POLICE in it then we would have something legitimate to base this on. But I don't see how you can possibly weigh an unnamed source against the multitude of named witnesses who have come out with contradictory statements. The only explanation is that it is because the information the unnamed source is giving is the testimony you want to believe is true.

Is not semantic nitpicking. "Raining blows down on someone's head" is very fucking different from being in a grappling struggle with someone who happens to be on top. Either scenario would be likely, and had KS said that "if this interpretation is true" I would have been ok with it. However passing off one's imagined interpretation of events as a witness accounting is extremely dishonest.

You have clearly never actually been in a situation where someone was on top of you in a grappling struggle. If you'd even been in one in trainging, you'd realize how easy it is for a person on top to start hitting you in the head if they want to; actual ground-fighting techniques taught as basics to people not doing ground fighting as a long-term martial art (like, you know, law enforcement officers) emphasize keeping someone out of your mount or getting them out once they are there. A "grappling struggle" on the ground is generally about the guy underneath trying to block blows from the person on top unless either or both of them are skilled ground fighters and trying some more advanced technique - not the case here, and not the case in most fights. If a guy is in your mount, the difference between grappling with him and him raining blows on you is almost academic.. if he gets an arm loose where you can't control it, he can hit you right in the face, using the ground as an anvil and put someone out with a few solid shots, maybe even just one. He can beat you to death if you can't get out of that position.

You keep treating this like somehow being on the bottom is just a position you happen to be in like a high school wrestling match. That's not the case in a real fight. There are no referees, and there's no rule against punching someone. If you are not a skilled ground fighter, or do not have a considerable size AND strength advantage you do NOT want to ground fight someone.

Again, you are speculating about how this particular fight went. I'm not saying that the guy on top COULDNT have been blasting away, simply that the statements to the press by the anonymous witness known as John do not tell that story. He could just as easily have been trying to pin Zimmerman down to prevent him from fighting any further. Which is why it would be imperative to find this "john" and get details on what exactly he saw.

[Chirios]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Wrong. Zimmerman could be a known KKK member who feeds black teens feet first through a woodchipper and it still wouldn't have any bearing on the current case. Because this case, if it goes to trial, isn't about whether Zimmerman is a racist fuck who tailed a black kid and shot him. It's to determine if the shooting itself was justified self-defence or not.

lol, no it isn't. If Zimmerman was a known KKK member of course that has bearing on the case. The same as if Trayvon had been in psychiatric care for violent psychosis.

[Anguirus]

Another Irrelevant Editorial by a Man Who Is Black And Therefore Insufficiently Dispassionate

And it’s racism. All of it. It is unquestionably, objectively racism. It’s not some guy going out to lynch nigras for looking at white women, but that’s not the entirety of what racism is. Racism is a system. Racism is a way of thinking. Racism is subconscious. Racism is an entire country being trained to suspect an entire race of being shifty, lazy, or suspicious by default. I have to prove that I’m not a threat? How about I make America prove it doesn’t want to murder me, since there’s way more precedent for that than some skinny kid being a savage. If I have my hood up and I’m not smiling because I’m having a bad day, I’m a threat, someone to make you clutch your purse or hug your girl closer. I’m a thug? C’mon son. I’m just having a bad day in the big city. Get real. You’ve been trained to see brown skin and go to “Threat!” first instead of “Person!” You’ve been brainwashed.

The craziest part of this brainwashing is how a very basic situation has been twisted into something incredibly ugly. An unarmed child is shot and killed for doing nothing but walking home by a man with no authority who had been told to stand down by the police. This is cut and dry. You can look at this and go, “Oh, that’s a tragedy.” But because the kid was black, because everything is ultra-politicized, because racism is so ingrained in the DNA of the United States of America, this is somehow a controversy. I repeat: an unarmed child was shot dead by a grown man. This is one situation that everyone should be able to understand. It’s a nightmare scenario for every family ever. And yet… the news is telling us that the child may have possibly been a thug, a drug dealer, a hoodlum, a monster, as if any of that has anything to do with why he got shot. There are people out there actively digging up (incorrect) dirt on Trayvon Martin as if that matters at all. He’s a… I don’t even know, a point in a long-running argument, an abstraction about the evils of black youth.

Standard Internet Sarcasm Disclaimer may apply to the link title.

[SVPD]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Bingo. I'm quite honestly surprised that this thread has lowered itself to the level of quoting the "dirt" that certain parties are "digging up" about a 17 year old dead boy. There's simply nothing else to say about that, Flagg summed it right up.

If you want to say Zimmerman isn't racist, fine, but the violent history is simply a matter of fact. Is that the one reason to damn him, no, but at the very least it is potentially relevant and not some masturbatory "he got what he deserved cause he was on the pot" Drudge campaign.

Sadly the dead do not have the protection of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" than Zimmerman does. At least not in the Miami Herald.

Disregarding the purple prose, the fact is that Zimmerman's history is only relevant if he's found guilty (in sentencing). Martin's history isn't relevant either.

Unspecified anecdotal evidence is not terribly convincing.

Sorry, I missed your statistics. I don't keep a list of all the black people I've ever spoken to and I didn't take notes while I was at it. You want to read some of the authors I refer to? Click on my link above.

You missed them because I made no statistical claims, and even if you'd kept excellent records they'd still be anecdotes that say nothing about an overall picture. They'd also be one persons side of the story.

The relevant clause was this. You write: "I could also point out that society quickly demonizes anyone or anything that is proclaimed "racist" with no discussion of whether that definition of racism is reasonable." I responded that this was facially untrue, because not only are WE having that discussion, so are others in the mainstream. If you wish to make the point that many people disagree on many thing, sure. If you want to have the argument that it is impossible to make any general statements about US or other societies, I disagree and I refer to you, well, the field of sociology.

We're having a discussion, but our little discussion on this message board is not a discussion on a meaningful, societal level; people are not coming to SDN for sociological wisdom. I'm sorry if what I meant by that was unclear. As for "others in the mainstream", they are not having anything that could be called a discussion; one side is screaming racism as loudly as it can and parading witnesses that didn't see anything in front of the cameras and the other side is dredging up Martin's disciplinary history at school. There's no discussion of what racism is in this country because one side simply denounces any disagreement with their definition as yet more racism, and the other side is all too happy to let them do it so that the need to improve things like school funding in order to address real problems don't ever get discussed. When your opponents are tilting at windmills its all to easy to let them tilt so that you can avoid confronting uncomfortable realities like not enough money to purchase school books.

Society does demonize behavior that is perceived as racist. In my opinion this is right and proper, just as society properly demonizes murderers. Now there are problems associated with the "court of public opinion," hence my comment about the jury.

It might be "right and proper" if what was deemed "racist" was not a monopoly of the part of one part of society. It is all too easy to simply turn accusations of yet more racism against anyone who says, "no, that is NOT racism."

No. The "underlying causes" are of great interest to many policymakers (well, the ones who aren't arch-conservatives). However, while race is a significant indicator of poverty, poverty still does not exclude race as a predictor of incarceration, sentences, public school performance, etc.

Basically, this is a strawman. Nothing I have said or, to my knowledge, any progressive has said, supports replacing economic and educational reforms with some sort of magic anti-racist policy.

No, this is not in any way a strawman. First, because race is a predictor does not make it a cause. That's a basic correlation-causation fallacy. You've already stated that you only think racism will be no longer a factor when race is no longer a predictor of economic success. Ok, well then presumably you think educational and economic reforms would bring about such a reduction in the predictive value of race. Therefore, you necessarily think that educational and economic reforms are an anti-racism program. Therefore anyone arguing against such programs must be a racist. This is what I mean about using racism to suppress discussion. If economic and educational reforms are necessary (which they are) and the specific reforms you want are the best way of going about getting such results, then they should be able to stand on their own merits without perverting racism to mean "opposing the measures 'progressives' want". Why is it not possible to discuss how we could better educate our population without assuming racist motives on the part of those that disagree?

Yes, Zimmerman may have been an unusual paranoiac, but it was Martin's risk factors I'm referring to.

None of which Zimmerman could have been aware of. You do recall that there had been break-ins in recent months in Zimmerman's area?

You never say which side is which...we'll discuss what you like, fine, I don't have the time or the resources to hit up the Coliseum right now with "WHAT IS RACISM?" If you want to convince me that race is not relevant to this case, go ahead and try, but you aren't making much headway.

You do realize that you just asked me to prove a negative, right? Even if you did frame it as "convincing you". You're not making a lot of headway either; frankly I'm seeing the same crap I've always seen of making racism so nebulous and mutable that it will always be a political weapon to bludgeon people with.

Prejudice, stereotyping, and bigotry don't hurt the man with the gun. It is history that is at work here. Actually, not only history. Why are blacks vastly more likely to be arrested, despite committing crimes at roughly the same rate as whites? Why do they receive tougher sentences? Is the justice system as a whole exerting some sort of conscious, cold-blooded, punitive effort against the black community? Or can we admit that US racism is simply pervasive and endemic, and is unconsciously applied at multiple levels?

Where exactly do you get this idea that blacks are arrested at greater rates, but commit crimes at the same rate as whites? In fact, how do you even know at what rate they "commit crimes" other than the arrest rate? The conviction rate? That would mean blacks are more likely to be found not guilty than whites. Here's the little problem with your assessment:

Whites constitute 72.4% of the population of this country, Blacks consitute 12.6%, in both cases disregarding Hispanic origin. Other races constitute the remaining 11%.

When it comes to arrests in 2009

In 2009, 69.1 percent of all individuals arrested were white, 28.3 percent were black, and 2.6 percent were of other races.

In other words, whites are arrested at a rate comparable to their percentage of the population, but blacks are arrested at a rate more than twice as high as their percentage! Must be racism, right?

Wrong. Look at "other races". They are arrested at a rate much lower than their percentage of population; only about 1/5 or so. 20% of the rate Whites are arrested at! This would lead us to believe that there is massive pro-other race favoritism and racism in the justice system, wouldn't it?

Wrong again. There's a much simpler explanation that deals with exactly the concerns you cited: Demographic data and crime data do not break race down in the same ways. In crime data, there are only 3 categories: White, black, and other, possibly 4 in some, with Asian being counted. In overall racial demographic data, however, we include other categorizations such as Mestizo, or people with more than one race, plus Native Americans, etc. A great many people who fall into one of these categories are being incorrectly classified as "black" for crime statistics. Look at Barack Obama. For demographics he's a person with more than one race; his mother is white, his father is black. For crime purposes he'd doubtless be lumped in as "black"; he's referred to as a black man on a daily basis.

The bottom line of all this is that we don't actually have any good statistics on what race commits crimes at, is arrested at, or is convicted at, what rate because each study, poll, census, or whatever uses different racial categories. There's no apples-to-apples comparison.

As for your little false dilemma, there's a much better explanation. Blacks are economically disadvantaged and educationally disadvantaged. Both of these lead not only to a higher crime rate but to more of the types of crime that have heavier sentences. Better education would improve the economic situation of blacks, which would reduce the crime rate, and would reduce it as a result of the education itself. Furthermore, the more educated the black population becomes, the more it will value education, thus creating continuous improvement. That requires 3 things A) reform of schools and school funding B) greater valuation of getting an education among blacks as a whole and C) casting aside "racism" as an excuse.

For predjudice, stereotyping, and bigotry not hurting the man with the gun, bullshit. They certainly do when his supposed "victim" goes to the press ranting and screaming about how he was supposedly "victimized" by this cop, or when the arrested person files some horseshit complaint. People, including, evidently, you are all to willing to accept each and every complaint of police misconduct at face value if it's directed against a black person. Law enforcement officers are under the microscope every day, and even if the officer is found to have done nothing wrong, people will still be claiming that was because of some "blue wall" bullshit or because the officer was white (even if the officer wasn't white) no matter what the actual facts were. For many people, pulling over a black man is racial profiling automatically, and if the officer happens to be black, well then he's an "Uncle Tom" or something even less savory.

If you want attitudes to change, they must be changed by effort, not excuse-making.

You need to take your own advice.

Yes. Why should I trust you, and not them? Why do I trust both you and them? Why don't I mistrust both you and them and just throw up my hands and cry out that nothing is to be done?

Because denial doesn't help.

Maybe you should trust me because making up a bullshit story about the cops is not unique to black people. People of all races do it. White people do it all the time. The only difference is that white people cannot pile racism on top of everything else, unless the cop happens to be black and then its a hell of a lot more likely to be dismissed out of hand. Rightly so, because very few black cops will pull over or harass a white person just because they're white. Yet mysteriously the same belief doesn't extend to white cops; no, all of a sudden then its ok to stereotype white cops based on their skin color, where they happen to live, and on incidents that don't seem to have any expiration date.

Are some of these stories true? Doubtless, but even in those cases there's a good chance that cop mistreats white people too. A shitty cop is not automatically racist because he does something to a black person; he is pretty damn likely to be doing the same shit to white people.

The problem is not "denial". "Denial" works when you're talking about addictions; it does not work to dismiss other people's perspectives on complex social problems.

No, it isn't. Everything doesn't equal out just because you say it does. The existence of various classes and their various privileges does not preclude white privilege being the biggest and most influential of all.

White privilege is not only not "the biggest" it is an utterly worthless hypothesis. It is undisproveable by nature and therefore can be immediately discarded. Furthermore it is an exercise in circular argument. How do we know whites have privilege? Well duh, because whiteness is a predictor for economic success? Why is that? Well, because of white privilege! Furthermore, it is an attempt to extrapolate from the generally better conditions of white people to specifically better conditions for individual white people. Let's go down to Kentucky or into Appalachia and find some white people with fucking dirt floors, and you can lecture them on how they have the "greatest privilege of all". Or how about that black venture capitalist on "shark tank"? Yeah, clearly he'd be even richer if only he were white.

Forget white privilege. That is excuse making. The problem is education, pretty much pure and simple. It drives everything else, and it doesn't even require active institutional racism to keep blacks economically disadvantaged. Poor education sustains that condition all on its own.

Privilege ended in the 1960s, yet there are more black men incarcerated than in college...

Irrelevant. More black men are incarcerated because ending privilege did not magically educate or economically boost the blacks living at that time. They still had to contend with the state they were in and the real evil of poor education is that it leads not only to higher crime and poorer economic prospects, but also to less valuation of education, thus creating an insidious vicious cycle.

I'd also point out that if YOU get shot in suspicious circumstances by a Zimmerman, or a black man, there will be no national outrage for you.

Who cares?

1) I'd be dead. Martin doesn't care about national attention, he's dead.

Way to miss the point, asshole. The point is that a young black teenager gets tons of national symapthy from people assuming he's innocent becuase he's black. You will not find the same happening if the victim is white; even if people privately feel that way, they will not say it in public.

2) I think there would be a little interest because it is still "random asshole guns down dude in gated community." I think there would be even more focus on "stand your ground."

There might be some local news interest because there is for practically any shooting. So what? As for focus on "stand your ground" stand your ground doesn't need any focus, isn't a problem, and isn't an issue in this case.

3) Would it have happened at all? Blacks are nine times more likely than whites to be gunned down, though they make up 16% of the national population compared to 64% non-Hispanic white.

That's silly. Because blacks are more likely to get shot ("gunned down" is just cheap purple prose) does not somehow mean you would not be shot; especially in a scenario where the starting point is you getting shot! Do you not understand what a hypothetical is?

Furthermore, most murders are by the same race. By the way, My DOJ publication makes it 6 times more likely, not 9. In any case,

Black victims are over represented in homicides involving drugs. Compared with the overall
involvement of blacks as victims, blacks are less often the victims of sex-related homicides,
workplace killings, and homicide by poison.
Race patterns among offenders are similar to those among victims.

Although slightly less true now than before, most
murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2005 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Black homicide rates are, in other words, a result mainly of murders by other blacks. This is the higher crime rate at work (not just murder but drug crimes as well), a product of poor economic prospects which in turn is driven by poor education. "Racism" in the justice system does not explain it. Even if it explained the difference in conviction rates, it would not account for the difference in victimization rates unless you are going to argue that whites murder blacks and then a black is arrested and convicted wrongly in their place so frequently as to make up a difference of 6-9 times.

This means that it's "racist" if whites have it better, on average, than minorities regardless of what changes in attitudes, laws, or policies have been made.

Yes.

This is nonsense. This definition is designed purely for use as a political tool.

This is precisely the sort of outrageous definition of racism that makes discussion impossible, or rather the habit some people have of calling any contesting of this definition to be "Racism" in and of itself.

Hardly. Start with the proposition that the races are mentally and physically equivalent, which is about as scientifically supported as it gets. Control for other factors. If race has a major effect on outcomes, then that's what I'd call a racist society.

I do not believe it is possible to "control for other factors" to the degree necessary to do that.

You want the game stacked against you because you were born a certain color? No? Then you agree that's a Bad Thing.

The game is not stacked against individuals because they were born a certain color. It is stacked against them because they were born with a socioeconomic disadvantage and that is more likely to be the case if they are black. That does not mean that the game is somehow not stacked against poor whites, or that it's somehow stacked in favor of, say, Asians.

I was leaving myself a bit of wiggle room for other factors of "success," but basically that would be the big one. Since, naturally, blacks and whites could have equal economic success yet blacks could still suffer in the justice system.

And you seriously think that the problems of blacks in the justice system are the product of a racist justice system rather than poor education and economic prospects? What types of crimes do you imagine blacks are most frequently convicted of or victimized by? Here's a hint: those suffered or committed by poor people.

This is a false dichotomy. We propose the same basic solution to the same basic problem, only you don't want me to actually TALK about the problem.

No, it's not a false dichotomy. You're not "talking about the problem". What you're trying to do is make racism both the cause and the effect; in other words racism is supposed to be the reason being white is a predictor of success, but white being a predictor of success is supposed to be the case because of racism. Then, "solutions" are proposed and anyone who does not agree to a 'progressive' (that term is hilarious) solution must themselves be a bigot. I want you to talk about the problem without getting on a high horse about it.

If we don't talk about the problem, we forget what we're trying to solve.

You're trying to beg the question. If I question whether racism is really the problem you can't then turn around and say "well, you just don't want to talk about the problem."

It is not any privilege or luxury, however. This is sheer nonsense. If you're white and poor or unemployed or whatever, you have it just as bad as a minority - maybe worse since no one will be talking about how racist it is that you're in such straights. Disadvantage is to the individual, not to the group. A rich black man is not automatically less rich because he's black, or less rich because there are a disproportionate numebr of poor black men.

No, it's not nonsense. You've just discovered different types of privilege. Rich people have it awesome.

Clearly. Yet this disproves the idea of white privilege, especially the "it's the biggest of all!" silliness. Privilege is something tangible, not some undisprovable hypothesis that in any given situation any given white person has it better than any given black person. This is simply speculating about unknowable conditions.

Systematic disadvantage that is applied by race is wrong, and I believe it behooves our country to make strides towards correction.

It's neither "systematic" nor "applied". I think you mean "systemic" in that it's statistically notable across races at the national level. Yes, that's wrong but the problem is that we should be trying to correct ignorance and poverty, not ignorance and poverty among blacks. If we do that, blacks will naturally be beneficiaries since more of them are ignorant and in poverty. Trying to correct it by correcting "racism" doesn't work because it misidentifies and oversimplifies the real problem.

Racism is NOT systematic inequality based on race. Racism is actions that discriminate against a particular race AND which serve no other overriding purpose.

OR IS IT? I told you from the start that this was using my definition. It is derived from discussions I have had with my sociology professor and from participation in the skeptical community online. I tacitly agreed with you that the definitional issue is tricky, so I wasn't attempting to force you to accept mine, just elucidate it clearly.

And I'm pointing out why I disagree with your definition.

If I might ask, why bother with the second clause in your own definition? Strikes me as being restrictive. There is always a "practical" reason/excuse for racial discrimination. "I wish that black people wouldn't live here because I don't want my property values to go down." "I think Arabs should live somewhere else because I'm afraid of terrorists." What would fail to qualify as an overriding purpose?

In other words, if a law provides equal protection to all, it is not racist just because a particular race or ethnic group is disadvantaged by it. It might still be, but that's why the interest has to be "overriding". For example, every nation has the right to decide who may immigrate there, and how many people. The fact that's it's primarily Hispanic people that want to come into the United States illegally does not make those laws anti-Hispanic. It's not as if they'd suddenly become better laws if Central and South America were populated by non-Hispanic whites, and in fact when we apprehend illegal aliens of any race or ethnicity the same laws are enforced against them. (You'd be amazed how many Chinese, Indians, Bengladshis, and other non-Hispanics cross the border down here. More importantly, Hispanics are not "brown people". Not only are most of the people on this side of the border and enforcing the laws Hispanic, they are not necessarily "brown". I see Mexicans and Americans of Mexican descent every day with skin that's average for a white person, eye colors other than brown, and occasionally other hair colors as well. It's yet another example of acceptable bigotry. Hispanics are not "dirty brown people we want to keep out" nor are Texans near the border "white people". It's fucking offensive and ignorant.)

Systematic inequality in this country has its roots in racism of the past, but it isn't racism in and of itself. In fact, that's circular. "Racism, is systemic inequality. Systemic inequality is caused by racism. How do we know? Well, because the races are systematically unequal and that's racist!"

What's circular? Racism can have historical causes. Doesn't make it right. Racism (in society) is systematic inequality that is based on, and explained by, race. We know it's there because we can look and see it.

I just explained how it's circular. The only thing you can look and see is the inequality. If you want to call that inequality "racism" you can't then also say it's caused by racism. That's circular. Pick one or the other.

I can't tell what relationship your word salad has to anything I've written.

You don't understand what a circular argument is?
For a different (excellent) definition of "racism" on a more individual-based level see this

It utterly ignores the underlying socieoeconomic problems in favor of ranting and screaming and ensures that the systematic equality will never be addressed.

No, it doesn't. You used that false dichotomy again. Justify it.[/quote]

[SVPD]

Are you fucking retarded? No one has made any such claim. The claim is solely that Martin is not quite as innocent as initially portrayed.

That's the same kind of bullshit you hear when someone smears a rape victim:

"Well, she sucked a guy's dick in high school, was caught drinking under age and therefore she's a whore who got what she deserved -oh, let me rephrase that! She wasn't quite the innocent victim she was made out to be."

No shit, sherlock. That's why I said Martin's record is irrelevant. The only reason people are digging into it is that previously his supporters were trying to use his supposedly oh-so-clean record as a reason that Zimmerman must be at fault.

Guess what, fuck face? You can't use a rape victim's sexual history to convict the accused, either. The fact that a girl is previously a virgin or monogamous does not automatically make it rape if she says so.

[SVPD]

Of course Zimmermans prior behavior is relevant. It shows a history of both violence and racist attitudes. Martins isn't relevant at all since he doesn't have any documented violent history.

Wrong. Zimmerman could be a known KKK member who feeds black teens feet first through a woodchipper and it still wouldn't have any bearing on the current case. Because this case, if it goes to trial, isn't about whether Zimmerman is a racist fuck who tailed a black kid and shot him. It's to determine if the shooting itself was justified self-defence or not.

lol, no it isn't. If Zimmerman was a known KKK member of course that has bearing on the case. The same as if Trayvon had been in psychiatric care for violent psychosis.

That sort of information might have bearing on sentencing, and on Zimmerman's credibility as a witness, but the former is after guilt is determined, and the latter is determined by the jury.

The same would apply to Martin. If he were in psychiatric care, that would speak to his ability to control himself and be responsible for his own actions, and might speak to the credibility of his story (if he were alive to have one).

In neither case does it allow us to assume what happened for any missing events. We cannot say "Well, Zimmerman was a racist so he must have done something to provoke the fight."

[SVPD]

Are you intentionally being thick skulled? You have to be. "Raining down blows" evokes an image of relentless blasting away at someone's face where they might feel like their life was threatened where is "hitting" someone could be much less severe. In fact the quote from the witness doesn't even say he saw any blows thrown, simply that he saw one guy on top of the other. The follow up comment of "The one guy beating up the other guy" could mean that he actually saw punches, or simply that he felt the guy on top was "winning" the fight. If anyone can find this "john" then we could ask him to clarify.

If someone is on your mount, even "Less severe" hitting is life threatening. You obviously do not understand the first thing about what you're talking about. You're nitpicking. As for getting "John" to clarify, do you seriously think he's going to satisfy the wants of SDN posters? Or do you somehow think anyone, anywhere in this case besides you is concerned over this imaginary difference between "raining blows" and "hitting"?

WRONG you stupid fuck. Maybe you should stop blindly backing up your buddy KS and check things out before you speak. KS is again speculating that one of the male witnesses was "John", however the names are all blacked out. We can guess at some of the witnesses based on their descriptions, however there were multiple male and female witnesses listed.

Who the fuck else would it be besides John, and if they have an eyewitness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him, who gives a fuck if it was John or someone else?

Further, the report I linked had NO witness statements in it. The "statement" from "john" that you just quoted was given to a reporter after the fact. It might be genuine, or it might all be bullshit. See, that's the thing about anonymous statements you have no way to vett the person giving the statement to make sure it is legit. One should thus always be skeptical of anonymous sources, especially when they contradict other named sources. IF John reappears and is willing to testify to what he saw it will carry more weight.

First of all, "anonymous" is not automatically less credible than "named" especially when the "anonymous" people are, in fact, talking to people like reporters and the police. Your two females are completely non-credible because they have essentially no information other than that they heard screaming and gunshots, which we knew anyhow, yet you're trying to pretend they're more credible than John just because you don't personally know who John is or what he looks like. What the fuck do you think seeing him or knowing his last name would do for you in terms of ability to "vett" him? You're trying to tie John's appearance and willingness to testfy to whether he's appeared to you. You are not the one he needs to appear to nor indicate his willingness to testify to.

Second, the police report you linked is incomplete. There are witness statements, they just aren't at the link. It says right in the report that statements were taken

An anonymous statement to the press isn't fucking testimony.

Neither is a statement given to a bunch of reporters surrounded by the victim's family. There is no testimony at this point; we haven't gone to court yet. We don't even have access to witness statements.

Further, the statements made aren't exactly clear on what he saw aside from two men struggling. Details would be extremely key in this case.

Why are details important? Because you just can't grasp that there is no real difference between "hitting" and "raining blows"? what makes you think a witness is going to be able to describe the way one guy is hitting another guy in exacting detail?

Yes it is possible he exists and isn't coming forward because he's afraid of retaliation. If someone could provide the police report that has his statements TO POLICE in it then we would have something legitimate to base this on.

Funny how that police report doesn't have any of the OTHER witness statements in it, yet you're mysteriously ok with them just ebcause they talked to reporters on TV, despite the fact that they have almost nothing to say.

But I don't see how you can possibly weigh an unnamed source against the multitude of named witnesses who have come out with contradictory statements.

Because there is no multitude of witnesses contradicting them. The witnesses contradicting him did not see what happened. They can't testify to that; it's their assumption. More importantly, 2 is not a "multitude". Right now I have no evidence that this reporter fabricated or altered John's testimony, nor that John lied to the reporter, and I don't see that a person';s willingness to make a public spectacle of themself is tied to credibility. John's story is not contradicted by any physical evidence either.

The only explanation is that it is because the information the unnamed source is giving is the testimony you want to believe is true.

This is hilarious coming from the guy that is claiming that witnesses that didn't see anything are able to contradict a witness that did. I don't "want" to believe anything. I think Zimmerman is an idiot that should have minded his own business.

Again, you are speculating about how this particular fight went. I'm not saying that the guy on top COULDNT have been blasting away, simply that the statements to the press by the anonymous witness known as John do not tell that story. He could just as easily have been trying to pin Zimmerman down to prevent him from fighting any further. Which is why it would be imperative to find this "john" and get details on what exactly he saw.

I don't think you get it. There is no "how this particular fight went." Once you're in someone's mount, you're in a position of overwhelming advantage. It doesn't matter whether you're pinning them, hitting them, or whatever; the point is that you can, instantly, go to deadly force and unless they're a skilled ground fighter they can't stop you. Zimmerman could legitimately fear for his life just because the kid was trying to pin him; for all he knew the kid was trying to take his gun and then kill him with it. If Martin was yelling at him something like "stop fighting, I don't want to hurt you" or anything at all like that, then there might be a case that Zimmerman was not reasonably in fear with this kid on top of him, but no witnesses have testified to anything like that.

Furthermore, if there are no witnesses, we cannot assume a course of the fight unfavorable to Zimmerman either. In fact, we're prohibited from doing so. That's Reasonable Doubt, right there. If Zimmerman is the only witness the only way to contradict his testimony is physical evidence.

[TheHammer]

SVPD, as you've contributed nothing new I'm not going to bother responding point by point. I'll let what I've already posted stand on its own rather than continue this ad nausem. However, please don't draw the conclusion that I feel that any of your bullshit is valid and I don't think anyone else (asside from maybe Kamikaze Sith) believes it is valid either.

[aerius]

Here's the bottom line. If 2 people get into a fight and one of them ends up in the mount position, the guy on top shall be considered the aggressor and will be dealt with accordingly unless there is clear undisputable evidence that he's just restraining the guy on the bottom and/or attempting to disengage from and de-escalate the situation.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation and swung the first punch at Martin. The fight is on and Martin ends up getting Zimmerman down and mounting him. If Martin then does anything other than solely restraining Zimmerman while trying to de-escalate the situation, he'll have gone from self-defence to assault & battery. In other words, if he gets mount and continues to punch or attempt to punch Zimmerman, he is now guilty of assault and Zimmerman can now blow his head off and legitimately claim self-defence. Why? Same reason you can't repeatedly stomp and soccer kick a guy in the head after you've knocked him down in an altercation. If I have to explain why you can't do that, then I'd suggest you lie down on the ground while I boot you head.

[Anguirus]

Disregarding the purple prose, the fact is that Zimmerman's history is only relevant if he's found guilty (in sentencing). Martin's history isn't relevant either.

This surprises me, because last I checked the facts of the case were themselves in dispute. ZImmerman's history wouldn't be relevant to establishing his credibility?

At any rate, I'm not sure Flagg was talking purely about legal relevance, but whatever.

You missed them because I made no statistical claims, and even if you'd kept excellent records they'd still be anecdotes that say nothing about an overall picture. They'd also be one persons side of the story.

I didn't make any statistical claims either. That's what perplexes me the most. AFAIK the only point I made is that black suspicion of black youths on the street is a thing that has happened, N > 1. Do you seriously disbelieve this?

There's no discussion of what racism is in this country because one side simply denounces any disagreement with their definition as yet more racism, and the other side is all too happy to let them do it so that the need to improve things like school funding in order to address real problems don't ever get discussed.

Exactly what makes you think that both sides of American politics are conspiring to have a fruitless non-discussion about racism in order to prevent increases in school funding?

You keep returning to this idea, and it honestly just doesn't make a whit of sense to me. I agree with most of the paragraph this sentence is quoting (the wingnuts have definitely come out to play, and acts of poor taste have certainly been committed by both "sides" that inevitably have formed) but how is it that the real issue is school funding, and how is it that both sides are culpable?

It might be "right and proper" if what was deemed "racist" was not a monopoly of the part of one part of society. It is all too easy to simply turn accusations of yet more racism against anyone who says, "no, that is NOT racism."

Please define which part of society has that monopoly. Liberals? Black people? Non-white people? It's difficult to know what to say to this as it is currently written, sorry.

First, because race is a predictor does not make it a cause. That's a basic correlation-causation fallacy.

No shit.

Common fucking sense makes it a cause. You mentioned the '60s. How exactly could racism have gone from being pervasive to irrelevant in 40 years?

You've already stated that you only think racism will be no longer a factor when race is no longer a predictor of economic success. Ok, well then presumably you think educational and economic reforms would bring about such a reduction in the predictive value of race. Therefore, you necessarily think that educational and economic reforms are an anti-racism program. Therefore anyone arguing against such programs must be a racist.

No, I do not think this is true. Remember, "racism" is not "what racists do."

I no doubt have been guilty of racism. I hazard a guess that most people, at some point, have been guilty of racism. Am I a racist? I do not think so. Are most people racists? I do not think so, not even in this country.

I think of a racist (meaning "a racist person") as having a relatively consistent ideology regarding the inferiority of one or more races.

Now I do think that people who oppose "such programs" should consider their benefit in combating inequality and making us a more fair society. Non-racists may unwittingly promote racism in society. I dispute that aspect of modern conservative thought that promotes complacency and dismissal of racial issues. Of course, there are degrees of racism, and the degree to which something is or is not racist is not the sole indicator of its worth.

If economic and educational reforms are necessary (which they are) and the specific reforms you want are the best way of going about getting such results, then they should be able to stand on their own merits without perverting racism to mean "opposing the measures 'progressives' want". Why is it not possible to discuss how we could better educate our population without assuming racist motives on the part of those that disagree?

I don't know. I admit that you seem to have moved onto a specific issue that I'm not prepared to discuss at the moment.

None of which Zimmerman could have been aware of.

Zimmerman wasn't aware that he was black?

You do recall that there had been break-ins in recent months in Zimmerman's area?

Exactly which parts of Zimmerman's bizarre behavior does this excuse? I thought we were in agreement as to Zimmerman's heinous misconduct, but this seems to tear that whole thing apart again. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

You do realize that you just asked me to prove a negative, right?

Indeed, this was a mistake on my part. Regardless, I'm not going to argue what definition of racism is best. I'm not interested in whether or not Zimmerman is "a racist." I suspect that Martin's death was a symptom of historical racism in the United States. It is far from radical to observe that young black men are generally treated with suspicion. We can't know the answer for sure because we can't get inside Zimmerman's head.

I'm not interested in bludgeoning anybody, politically or otherwise. However the conservative pundit community has earned my contempt for their Martin-related dogshit.

Where exactly do you get this idea that blacks are arrested at greater rates, but commit crimes at the same rate as whites?

My mistake, and my apologies for a hasty response. I was thinking of drug crime.

Of course, this is telling itself. If blacks and whites use drugs at the same rate; use of drugs is the crime; then how exactly do you get 3-6 times more arrests of blacks, who are the minority in most areas of the country?

It is no doubt entangled with socioeconomic status, but consider that it's easier to tell race with a look than socioeconomic status.

However my original statement was indeed false.

<snip> The bottom line of all this is that we don't actually have any good statistics on what race commits crimes at, is arrested at, or is convicted at, what rate because each study, poll, census, or whatever uses different racial categories. There's no apples-to-apples comparison.

This is an excellent point. Conceded, as far as arrest rates anyway.

As for your little false dilemma, there's a much better explanation. Blacks are economically disadvantaged and educationally disadvantaged. Both of these lead not only to a higher crime rate but to more of the types of crime that have heavier sentences.

It does not explain why heavier sentences are imposed for the same crime.

Better education would improve the economic situation of blacks, which would reduce the crime rate, and would reduce it as a result of the education itself. Furthermore, the more educated the black population becomes, the more it will value education, thus creating continuous improvement. That requires 3 things A) reform of schools and school funding B) greater valuation of getting an education among blacks as a whole and C) casting aside "racism" as an excuse.

A) yes
B) yes
C) elaborate?

Please support the assertion that false overestimation of racism materially harms the black community. That's what you keep saying and I think it's going to be a pretty tough thing to back up.

For predjudice, stereotyping, and bigotry not hurting the man with the gun, bullshit. They certainly do when his supposed "victim" goes to the press ranting and screaming about how he was supposedly "victimized" by this cop, or when the arrested person files some horseshit complaint. People, including, evidently, you are all to willing to accept each and every complaint of police misconduct at face value if it's directed against a black person. Law enforcement officers are under the microscope every day, and even if the officer is found to have done nothing wrong, people will still be claiming that was because of some "blue wall" bullshit or because the officer was white (even if the officer wasn't white) no matter what the actual facts were. For many people, pulling over a black man is racial profiling automatically, and if the officer happens to be black, well then he's an "Uncle Tom" or something even less savory.

When people perceive that peace officers are a physical threat to themselves and their children, they tend not to care about the threat of administrative consequences for that officer.

I think people will invariably have a very bipolar view of police. Good ones are angels, bad ones are demons. It's because police have power. There is also a history of enforcing racism with police, thanks to Jim Crow.

I'm sorry that you feel this is unfair and that police feel pressured, but what can you say when people fear for their lives and freedom? You HAVE to be under the microscope every day because we entrust you with the power to take everything away from citizens. If police mistrust is endemic among a massive class of citizens, you can't just declare that it's their fault (at least, this won't improve the situation; you serve them the same as you serve everyone else.

Maybe you should trust me because making up a bullshit story about the cops is not unique to black people. People of all races do it. White people do it all the time. The only difference is that white people cannot pile racism on top of everything else, unless the cop happens to be black and then its a hell of a lot more likely to be dismissed out of hand. Rightly so, because very few black cops will pull over or harass a white person just because they're white. Yet mysteriously the same belief doesn't extend to white cops; no, all of a sudden then its ok to stereotype white cops based on their skin color, where they happen to live, and on incidents that don't seem to have any expiration date.

The burden of proof is on you, thanks to the weight of recent, local history.

Sorry dude.

Are some of these stories true? Doubtless, but even in those cases there's a good chance that cop mistreats white people too. A shitty cop is not automatically racist because he does something to a black person; he is pretty damn likely to be doing the same shit to white people.

How good is the chance?

Do you think black people notice or complain disproportionately of police mistreatment?

If so, why might this be the case?

Unfortunately I'm not finding anything in the way of data to back up either of us. Of interest.

The problem is not "denial". "Denial" works when you're talking about addictions; it does not work to dismiss other people's perspectives on complex social problems.

Racial inequality exists. Opposing perspectives are denial. The fact that racial inequality exists should cause us all to consider its influence on our actions.

White privilege is not only not "the biggest" it is an utterly worthless hypothesis. It is undisproveable by nature and therefore can be immediately discarded.

White privilege can be falsified on the level of any psychological study. Unfortunately, it often isn't. It's simply shorthand for a set of observations with a common theme (i.e. resume studies, sentencing...)

Forget white privilege. That is excuse making. The problem is education, pretty much pure and simple. It drives everything else, and it doesn't even require active institutional racism to keep blacks economically disadvantaged. Poor education sustains that condition all on its own.

We will see someday, I truly hope.

Way to miss the point, asshole. The point is that a young black teenager gets tons of national symapthy from people assuming he's innocent becuase he's black. You will not find the same happening if the victim is white; even if people privately feel that way, they will not say it in public.

Bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_wh ... n_syndrome

He's presumed innocent because he was unarmed and was walking from a convenience store to his house, not because he's black. In fact, it's his "blackness" that fuels the smear campaign.

How bout he's presumed innocent BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING INNOCENT, you dweeb. Turns out people think it's shitty to start an altercation and then win by escalating it with a deadly weapon!

As for focus on "stand your ground" stand your ground doesn't need any focus, isn't a problem, and isn't an issue in this case.

It is.

1) it is now his lawyer's defense.
2) It has already strongly influenced the handling of the case and will continue to do so.

That's silly. Because blacks are more likely to get shot ("gunned down" is just cheap purple prose) does not somehow mean you would not be shot; especially in a scenario where the starting point is you getting shot! Do you not understand what a hypothetical is?

Obviously by my other two answers. But do you understand why I have less to fear than Trayvon did?

Furthermore, most murders are by the same race.

Irrelevant.

And you seriously think that the problems of blacks in the justice system are the product of a racist justice system rather than poor education and economic prospects?

False dilemma.

What you're trying to do is make racism both the cause and the effect; in other words racism is supposed to be the reason being white is a predictor of success, but white being a predictor of success is supposed to be the case because of racism. Then, "solutions" are proposed and anyone who does not agree to a 'progressive' (that term is hilarious) solution must themselves be a bigot. I want you to talk about the problem without getting on a high horse about it.

Racism is a self-perpetuating attitude, and system. There is no one easy solution. High horse? Fuck you. I'm the one who's got an ounce of humility. You claim to want the same damn thing I want, so why is it so important that I jump on your post-racial bullshit bandwagon?

It is the HEIGHT of arrogance to summarily proclaim when racism is not a problem.

Now I'm off to laugh at arbitrarily chosen political labels!

If you want to call that inequality "racism" you can't then also say it's caused by racism. That's circular. Pick one or the other.

You know what? Fine. I'll go work on my definition of racism and get back to you. I don't have time for any more of this.

[Flagg]

Just for the record, I was talking about Zimmermans past history of violence and questionable racial stances being used to determine the facts of the case as they happened, not in a legal proceeding.

[aerius]

Just for the record, I was talking about Zimmermans past history of violence and questionable racial stances being used to determine the facts of the case as they happened, not in a legal proceeding.

All I gotta say is good luck with that. We have a full on media frenzy and all the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork to add fuel to the fire. It's gonna be quite some time before we get any real facts out of this clusterfuck.

[weemadando]

I'm liking the hoodie argument.

Because it's the same as the "she was dressed like a slut and so it was her fault she was raped" logic.

I wonder how many hypocrites that will end up bringing out of the woodwork.