PDA

View Full Version : Zimmerman trial



PseudoSABR
07-01-2013, 04:44 PM
Dude got fat. Wow

diehardtwinsfan
07-02-2013, 08:46 PM
Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do... Murder is a tougher standard, and I don't think Zimmerman was planning on killing the victim...

TheLeviathan
07-02-2013, 08:49 PM
Dude got fat. Wow

Yeah, it's like they are putting three of him on trial now.

That's a whole lot of stress weight for sure.

TheLeviathan
07-02-2013, 08:51 PM
Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do... Murder is a tougher standard, and I don't think Zimmerman was planning on killing the victim...

I heard on one of the channels that in Florida manslaughter can carry a 30 year sentence when a minor is involved. So it's possible they overcharged with that in mind.

That said, I can't believe the prosecution put a cop on the stand that they didn't vet enough to find out he thought Zimmerman's version was credible. I don't know how a jury can convict a man when the lead investigator thinks his story checks out. Pretty incredible.

PseudoSABR
07-03-2013, 10:45 AM
I think the prosecution is trying to demonstrate how calculated Zimmerman was in his version of his story and how well (or oddly) it fit within self-defense guidelines. Since Zimmerman won't take the stand, so they need to establish his point of view even through favorable accounts--in order to demonstrate how much a calculated liar he might be.

They showed his interview with Hannity in court yesterday, and I thought it was pretty damning for Zimmerman, but Zimmerman himself watched the video like he just done so very well. There was question at the end where Hannity asked him if he had any remorse or wished he could change anything, Zimmerman coldly answered, it was all part of gods plan and who I am to question that.

TheLeviathan
07-03-2013, 11:16 AM
I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.

PseudoSABR
07-03-2013, 02:57 PM
I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.If I remember correctly, Zimmerman wasn't charged immediately--not until the prosecutor's office took notice of national/local outcry--it really shouldn't be a surprise that the lead investigator would initially believe Zimmerman. The Prosecution's case is that Zimmerman knew how to manipulate the investigation by telling the police precisely what they wanted to hear.


This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: I'm not sure that this will come out in trial, but there's an undercurrent behind the notion of Zimmerman's presumed innocence--an ugly one. That, while Martin wasn't a criminal that day, it seems at least in Zimmerman's mind, Travon was going to become one, and that Zimmerman was really doing everyone a favor (the investigators could have been instinctual persuaded by this, what with their initial assessment that Zimmerman may have been the victim). If I'm prosecution, I try to use Zimmerman's assumption of Martin's guilt against him--Zimmerman wanted to go out and kill a criminal, that it turned out to be some seventeen year old relatively harmless punk, doesn't really change Zimmerman's desire to do justice by blood if in his mind it came to that.

TheLeviathan
07-03-2013, 03:54 PM
The Prosecution's case is that Zimmerman knew how to manipulate the investigation by telling the police precisely what they wanted to hear.

Which, frankly, I think is ridiculously stupid. Does one need to have intimate knowledge of the law to suggest self-defense? There is no trick to that. The trick, if that was true, would be to create a scenario that worked out this well. Find a person bigger than you, who will attack you for following them, let them pin you to the ground and bust your nose and slam your head on the cement, and then find a way to get your gun out and shoot them while no one comes out to help or video it. I just find that implausible.

I'm pretty convinced that this fat dumbass made multiple manslaughter-level mistakes to create a situation in which he started getting his butt kicked enough to justify legit self defense. (Of particular import to me in this case is the idea that the police have concrete evidence to put Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. I highly doubt, while on top putting a beating on Zimmerman, that it was Martin screaming frantically for help)



This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: .

There is no doubt there was some profiling going on here. But there is a big jump from profiling (a long-engrained heuristic that has been beneficial for survival) to wanting to kill people. That connection to me, is people working way too hard to find motivation rather just looking at the simplest solution: this moron got in over his head trying to be a big man and a poor kid paid the price.

kydoty
07-03-2013, 05:47 PM
George Zimmerman Trial Interrupted By Trolls Who Use Skype (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291)

Love it.

diehardtwinsfan
07-04-2013, 03:01 PM
Which, frankly, I think is ridiculously stupid. Does one need to have intimate knowledge of the law to suggest self-defense? There is no trick to that. The trick, if that was true, would be to create a scenario that worked out this well. Find a person bigger than you, who will attack you for following them, let them pin you to the ground and bust your nose and slam your head on the cement, and then find a way to get your gun out and shoot them while no one comes out to help or video it. I just find that implausible.

I'm pretty convinced that this fat dumbass made multiple manslaughter-level mistakes to create a situation in which he started getting his butt kicked enough to justify legit self defense. (Of particular import to me in this case is the idea that the police have concrete evidence to put Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. I highly doubt, while on top putting a beating on Zimmerman, that it was Martin screaming frantically for help)




There is no doubt there was some profiling going on here. But there is a big jump from profiling (a long-engrained heuristic that has been beneficial for survival) to wanting to kill people. That connection to me, is people working way too hard to find motivation rather just looking at the simplest solution: this moron got in over his head trying to be a big man and a poor kid paid the price.

This... And this is very clearly manslaughter too. Problem with charging him with murder is that I'm not sure a jury will convict him of it.. Murder implies intent, and that is going to be very difficult to prove in this case. There's no motive.

PseudoSABR
07-05-2013, 02:13 PM
If you've been following the trial, Zimmerman's wounds (doctor called them insignificant) don't seem to justify 'legit' self-defense. Zimmerman's own exaggeration about how many times his head was slammed (he said 20 to 30 times, doctor said once) demonstrate the tall-tale-ness of the self-defense angle. It won't look good for Zimmerman, if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.

Zimmerman's attempt to manipulate how the police handle the case is just another piece in the second degree murder charge. I don't know whether the jury will agree, but the prosecution is going to try to show that Zimmerman had motive to deal out justice by death. It's the notion of vigilante "justice" that can demonstrate a will to kill. From the state's perspective, you can't let things like this go, you can't have dudes walking around armed thinking that they can police their neighborhood with deadly force. I know it prickles some of our libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's an important case symbolically, especially in a place like Florida where there's laws that empower vigilante "justice."

Again, I don't know if the prosecution can prove the case, but there's plenty of Zimmerman's lack of remorse, preparation to deal out justice (ignoring recommendations to discontinue pursuit, knowing what to say to cops, wanting to be a cop, being armed, neighborhood watch, etc.), and the actual forensic evidence of the case (witnesses, no blood on Martin's hands, 'insignificant' injuries, 911 calls, recorded pleas for help)--the case is provable. It looks like murder to me, and Zimmerman's own paranoia and lunacy (believing his life was in danger, that Martin was a criminal at all) don't at all mitigate his crime.

TheLeviathan
07-05-2013, 02:33 PM
If you've been following the trial, Zimmerman's wounds (doctor called them insignificant) don't seem to justify 'legit' self-defense.

Have you been following it? You're coming at this with a HEAVY bias, and it's very clear. Let me be clear - Zimmerman is the idiot that provoked this. Had he not been so gung-ho to prove himself the defender of the neighborhood against young, probably black, males - this would never have happened. I'm not defending him, I'm just looking at this rationally, which I'm just going to suggest to you that you are not.

The standard for self-defense is reasonable fear of being in danger. Having your head slammed around by someone bigger than you is good reason to be in fear for your health. It's very common for people to exaggerate their injuries, especially when there is blood present. If you are expecting someone being beaten up to have some kind of precise, analytic take on their injuries in a fight.....we have to go to square one here about how human beings react under stress. You can read into whatever you want about his indifference, all I know is that the facts of the case don't support your version.


Especially if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.

It's hard for me to believe that while Martin was on top of Zimmerman (proven by forensics) and delivering a more significant beating than he was getting (none vs. some) that he would be screaming for help. In what scenario does that happen? Are you telling me Zimmerman played possum until he was sufficiently beat up and then shot the kid? Because that's what it sounds like, that's the only way I can make sense of your posts. And the odds off him planning that, orchestrating a scenario to play that out, and have it work out this well....are basically impossible. (And don't forget - have a bunch of cops shrugs their shoulders and say "ok, if you say so even though arm-chair trial watchers will say they know more about this than I do" while at the same time having prosecutors dumb enough to put those same moron cops on the stand)

I just can't see how any rational human being could come to the conclusion that this was the grand orchestration of a master of Florida self-defense crime laws so he could kill a teenager. And for what? Clearly this same criminal mastermind would know it'd forever ruin his career as a cop or even a common vigilante....or is he just some kind of self-defense savant who is completely incompetent at all other things?

Cmon Psuedo....you're smarter than this, separate the politics of it.

I get the desire to crack down on vigilantism...but you can do that without fabricating an insanely unlikely scenario like the one you have laid out and the prosecution is doing as well. Manslaughter of a child carries a SERIOUS sentence in florida. (minimum 9 years with the judge being allowed to impose another 15 years, something common in cases involving children). Nail this moron with that rather than creating something to make us all sleep better at night about what happened.

TheLeviathan
07-05-2013, 02:48 PM
Let me clear again about what I think the simple truth here is (Occam's Razor and whatnot):

The forensics collected by the police department supported Zimmerman's version of events. They also knew this guy made dozens of mistakes along the way (as evidenced by them grilling him about how he could've defused the situation multiple times), but ultimately the situation his stupidity created was not pre-thought, but reactionary. Making it a clear case of manslaughter. The cops know, on that charge and given the facts in the case, they can charge him and get a conviction with a sizable penalty.

In come politic pressure and the feds, they trump the charge, bring in a whole lot of specious arguments to try and turn him into a cold blooded killer and try to bring that case to justice. Except the reality wins out. The forensics, the investigations by trained law enforcement, the inconsistencies in their own witnesses, and the enormous leap to take "*****ing punks" and turn it into a premeditated act of murder....and you get the utter mess that has been their case.

If they had just charged him with manslaughter, they'd have looked less inept, made Zimmerman look more the jerk he is for making this happen, and got virtually the same sentence.

PseudoSABR
07-05-2013, 03:05 PM
We're both biased and we're both being rational. I'm not at all suggesting that Zimmerman orchestrated his injuries, but I do think the order of events, when the screams of help happened, when Zimmerman's head struck whatever (no signs of that on the concrete by the way), when Martin was punching Zimmerman, who started the physical engagement are all open for interpretation. There was some kind of struggle but I'm not at all convinced that Zimmerman was ever in danger enough to warrant deadly force--if I'm on the jury, i'd have to look at the letter of the law to see what kind of 'danger' actually legitimizes self defense. But as a citizen, living among other armed citizens, I'm not going to have a pretty threshold for what I consider legitimate self-defense warranting deadly force.

Part of why I'm stickler on this notion of self defense, is that it empowers those with delusional paranoia--which is what led to Martin's death in teh first place. It's was delusional paranoia that led Zimmerman to follow Martin around, and it was delusional paranoia that caused Zimmerman to shoot Martin instead choosing a myriad of other options.

The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.

PseudoSABR
07-05-2013, 03:12 PM
Levi, I don't really take dispute with your version of what may have happened, for me though, Zimmerman was eager to kill someone whom he thought was a criminal, and he was seeking to put himself in a situation where such actions would be justified, knowing that we have to be cynical about the notion of 'self defense' and have a much higher threshold for it. Maybe that's not he letter of the law, but it provides context for me that make it murder and not an accidental death.

Zimmerman didn't simply get in over his head, he was seeking danger and he himself was dangerous aprori to his encounter with Martin.

TheLeviathan
07-05-2013, 03:21 PM
Pseudy...you gotta separate some of your good notions from this case. Your larger points I agree with, but they're leading you astray methinks.


We're both biased and we're both being rational. I'm not at all suggesting that Zimmerman orchestrated his injuries

Then why note that there was no evidence on the sidewalk? You're saying things out of both sides of your mouth. The re-enactment with the cops was backed by forensic evidence. The lead investigator said so, at that point speculation should end. Beyond that becomes conspiracy theory IMO.

Now what you choose to believe about self-defense is irrelevant here. If you're asking me if self-defense laws have become too lenient, I'd agree. But they are lenient. The threshold to meet them is incredibly easy, regardless of who started what. (I think it's clear Zimmerman started the situation, the confrontation is anyone's guess)


The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.

The problem is, delusional paranoia wouldn't even qualify as second degree murder. And to go back to your earlier point - you were spot on that this case SHOULD be about hold people accountable that go too far as vigilantes. Which makes the political pressure cave-in by the feds all the worse. Think about this: What has most of this case been about?

Answer: What happened AFTER the confrontation. Whereas it should be about what happened before it. That's the second most tragic part of this. This was never second degree murder, a proper charge would've had a proper focus.

PseudoSABR
07-05-2013, 05:37 PM
Then why note that there was no evidence on the sidewalk? You're saying things out of both sides of your mouth. The re-enactment with the cops was backed by forensic evidence. The lead investigator said so, at that point speculation should end. Beyond that becomes conspiracy theory IMO.I dispute the notion that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked; I think there was scuffle and confrontation where Martin ended up on top. Zimmerman had time and self-awareness to aim at Martin and shoot him in the heart; instead of, say, pistol whipping him. Where I'm seeing intent is that Zimmerman had the thinnest of thresholds to use deadly force.

And I think your distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder isn't quite correct. This is copied from wikipedia.


Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#cite_note-6)



Voluntary manslaughter (often referred to as third degree murder) sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#cite_note-7)

TheLeviathan
07-05-2013, 05:52 PM
Pseudo...did you really just quote wikipedia rather than looking at the specific state law? Yeesh, here:

Second degree murder (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html)
Manslaughter (http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html)

You're right that premeditated isn't necessary, but "delusional paranoia" wouldn't even come close to cutting it. Nor does one throw away statement account for that. It's an ENORMOUS stretch. By forensic accounts, Zimmerman reached across his body, pulled, and fired. I don't see how that requires aiming. This was a fight, not a gentleman's debate. That isn't excusing him, just the reality of how the human body works.

I don't deny that the Florida law, and the law in many states, has developed a threshold too low. But even before "stand your ground" the threshold was low. In court cases the term is "reasonable", which I think the general public thinks is a higher standard than it really is. It's a very low threshold and I don't see how you can argue away a busted nose and a bunch of cuts on the back of your head by a larger person. That more than meets the threshold.

And again, here we talking about self-defense. If you want to pick that bone, here are more than your fair share of cases (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases) to pick apart. This one should have been about this overzealous vigilante. Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.

PseudoSABR
07-05-2013, 06:12 PM
Pseudo...did you really just quote wikipedia rather than looking at the specific state law? My bad, quick and dirty. The actual statutes are here (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html), if anyone wants to wade through them.


Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.I don't think that's clear at all. We'll see what the jury thinks.

diehardtwinsfan
07-05-2013, 06:59 PM
Levi, I don't really take dispute with your version of what may have happened, for me though, Zimmerman was eager to kill someone whom he thought was a criminal, and he was seeking to put himself in a situation where such actions would be justified, knowing that we have to be cynical about the notion of 'self defense' and have a much higher threshold for it. Maybe that's not he letter of the law, but it provides context for me that make it murder and not an accidental death.

Zimmerman didn't simply get in over his head, he was seeking danger and he himself was dangerous aprori to his encounter with Martin.

And in doing so, he gives Martin rights to defend himself under Florida's stand your ground laws. I have to agree with Levi on this one. Manslaughter would have been a slam dunk conviction. Murder is not, and based on what I've seen thus far, I think Zimmerman goes free, and then we get to deal with riots afterwards. This was a stupid decision motivated more by politics than by evidence, and it's going to bite them bad.

diehardtwinsfan
07-13-2013, 05:59 AM
I'm a bit surprised this didn't get dredged back up. Prosecutors asked this week to allow the jury to reduce the charges to manslaughter... 3rd degree murder with child abuse was kind of dumb.

Not quite sure what the legal precedent is for that type of thing, I would have thought that manslaughter should have been on the table the whole time. I don't think Zimmerman had any plans to murder Martin... I'm not sure what Zimmerman planned truthfully. But to say that Zimmerman's negligence resulted in the death of Martin is hardly a stretch.

TheLeviathan
07-13-2013, 09:48 AM
I doubt most confident prosecution teams do that at that late stage. The lawyers for the Martin team also backed some of their rhetoric down from wanting to see this murder "punished" to wanting to see "justice".

i was amazed to see people publicly suggesting the theory Psuedo did earlier that this was some grand mastermind scheme. It really shocks me anyone could buy into that nonsense.

Too many variables the prosecution didnt prove or even attempt to explain, my guess is manslaughter.

PseudoSABR
07-13-2013, 08:47 PM
Second degree murder is strange, honestly, in its distinction from manslaughter. Basically, for this trial, state, whatever, the distinction is that second degree murderer has malice and ill-will toward the victim, manslaughter does not. While I do think there is evidence to support the second degree murder charge, I'm not sure how convincing the prosecutions case was.

And seriously, I didn't suggest it was a mastermind scheme, I just see Zimmerman lying his way out of shooting someone in a non-life-threatening scuffle. The question is did Zimmerman have a reasonable, justifiable belief that his life was in danger (I don't believe that he did).

The final rebuttal from the prosecution lays out pretty my take pretty convincingly.

PseudoSABR
07-13-2013, 08:55 PM
Not guilty. Oi.

PseudoSABR
07-13-2013, 09:04 PM
I bet the civil suit will turn out very different results. It's really a strange kind of justice that will take place here, with the books, appearances etc. the Zimmerman clan will make some money, and I bet the Martin clan gets their take. So modernly tragic.

TheLeviathan
07-13-2013, 09:24 PM
And seriously, I didn't suggest it was a mastermind scheme, I just see Zimmerman lying his way out of shooting someone in a non-life-threatening scuffle. The question is did Zimmerman have a reasonable, justifiable belief that his life was in danger (I don't believe that he did).

The final rebuttal from the prosecution lays out pretty my take pretty convincingly.

I think the prosecution highlighted precisely the problem in their case. They highlighted the fear or unease Trayvon likely felt that night. The problem is, in the face of fear we sometimes opt to fight/confront. When you couple that with the prosecution admitting Trayvon was on top when he was shot - it builds a strong reasonable doubt. Zimmerman may well have lied, but there was never any solid evidence that he had. Only inconsistencies the investigators and other criminal justice experts testified was normal in investigations.

The defense said it right - don't fill in the gaps. The burden of proof was on the prosecution and there was far, far too many holes to build a murder case. Now for manslaughter they had a helluva case and if they had focused on that element - they'd have gotten a guilty verdict.

Now, unfortunately, the jury members are basically being called out on the basis of race. As if their race made them incapable of deciding this case fairly. I have a huge problem with that subtle allegation.

buckninetyone
07-14-2013, 12:29 AM
prosecution failed to mention gerald zimmerman's career .204 avg.

mikecgrimes
07-14-2013, 05:01 AM
Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do...

The exact quote was "you don't have to do that" also although it is unclear Zimmerman claims he did not follow him. This is a pretty simple case that blew up on twitter and then in the media mostly on really bad information and in the case of NBC doctoring the 911 tape pathetic reporting. Zimmerman didn't get arrested that night for a reason. You couldn't get a conviction with an all black jury. A year and a half of Zimmerman's life has been wasted behind bars, there's going to be hell to pay for a lot of people involved in this case.

Moral of the story if you get in an altercation GUNS ARE ALLOWED so don't get in an altercation you don't need.

Brock Beauchamp
07-14-2013, 08:47 AM
Moral of the story if you get in an altercation GUNS ARE ALLOWED so don't get in an altercation you don't need.

No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason. Far too often, they lead to accidental shootings or incredibly nebulous shootings such as this.

And I'm generally pro-gun. Letting poorly trained people with no law enforcement or security experience carry around firearms because they feel afraid is not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

mikecgrimes
07-14-2013, 06:34 PM
No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason. Far too often, they lead to accidental shootings or incredibly nebulous shootings such as this.



Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

Brock Beauchamp
07-14-2013, 06:46 PM
Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

More people die from tripping on a sidewalk than accidental and misguided shootings?

You're joking, right?

Also, it is FAR from conclusive that Zimmerman was defending himself. Failure to convict does not equal exoneration.

The Wise One
07-14-2013, 08:26 PM
Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.
Brock may think you are kidding, I doubt it. 32 thousand gun deaths in 2011. Yeah right, 16000 people wre doing somethig pretty stupid. Lastyear thev4000 pedistrians were probably doing something stupid in your book when they were hit.

TheLeviathan
07-15-2013, 09:03 AM
Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

That's pretty disgusting. There is no "oh well" to this - we have an innocent with their life lost. At night and being followed for an unknown reason are really strong reasons for someone's flight/fight instinct to kick in. The poor kid was probably scared out of his mind - or at least nervous. What he did wasn't stupid, it was perfectly reasonable under these conditions. Hell, it's precisely why Zimmerman was told to not pursuit.

To the larger case - I'm more and more disturbed by this prosecution. Their opening statements claimed Zimmerman was on top and it was Martin screaming - by the end they had acknowledged Martin was on top and that he had a right to defend himself. How does that happen?

I chewed on the interviews/press conferences and there is just something I don't like about Angela Corey. A quick check of her background shows that she has been involved in some really extreme cases of overcharging - charging a 12 year old as an adult, putting a 77 year old man who fired warning shots into the ground to scare away people threatening to assault him for 20 years (a charge a Florida judge called a crime in and of itself), and the case of a black woman who fired a gun into a ceiling to scare away her abusive husband.

All under her watch. Combine that with a flimsy affadavit, repeated failures to disclose discovery, firing one of her employees for testifying in court that these things happened, and a flimsy case....and I see the work of a politician. This seems like it was all a publicity stunt on her part to continue to boost her name recognition. I know this is conspiracy theory-ish, but read up on this woman's past. I'm no longer as shocked as I was before about how this case came to end up like this.

Afterall, how can anyone in their right mind think you can get a murder conviction when your case looks like the model the underpants gnomes use:

1. First, he racially profiled
2. Then.......
3. Next....murder!

Just stupid. No justice for a slain kid because someone wanted to win political points rather than pursue a charge they might have actually succeeded at.

Brock Beauchamp
07-15-2013, 09:26 AM
Interesting, Levi. I didn't know she was behind the ridiculous overcharging of the woman who fired rounds into her ceiling to deter her husband from beating the crap out of her.

This woman is starting to sound like a menace. I wish more judges had the moxie to publicly berate these kinds of lawyers and shame them out of the system (or, at the very least, raise public awareness of them). They absolutely have the right to do it and generally, face no repercussion for doing so.

After dating a lawyer for several years, I'm starting to realize the awesome power held by judges. It's both frightening and reassuring, depending on the judge.

TheLeviathan
07-15-2013, 10:33 AM
Apparently Derschowitz has been calling for her to be disbarred. They have quite the feud going.

In the 77 year olds case a judge did wield some executive power to erase the "crime" that was the sentence and she just pressed on for a judge that caved.

I Really think her role in this is getting underplayed in the rush to not look at the details of this awful, corrupt prosecution. and let me be clear....seeking a charge was needed, doing so unethically only made this injustice a guarantee.

SweetOne69
07-15-2013, 10:42 AM
No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason.

And I'm generally pro-gun. Letting poorly trained people with no law enforcement or security experience carry around firearms because they feel afraid is not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

Actually Brock the "Average Schmuck" has more firearm experience then the trained law enforcement or security personnel. Many law enforcement personnel only ever shoot their weapons when the have to re-qualify, whereas the average schmuck who decides to carry a firearm practice on a regular basis.

Brock Beauchamp
07-15-2013, 11:02 AM
Actually Brock the "Average Schmuck" has more firearm experience then the trained law enforcement or security personnel. Many law enforcement personnel only ever shoot their weapons when the have to re-qualify, whereas the average schmuck who decides to carry a firearm practice on a regular basis.

I worked in a gun shop for nearly two years. In the case of the police departments I dealt with on a regular basis, they were required to shoot their firearms on a fairly regular basis and there was a constant flow of police officers through our range.

On top of that, the average schmuck has no training in how to handle a crisis situation and has very little idea of when they are within the bounds of the law to shoot at someone else. There is a reason why a good percentage of police officers dislike conceal and/or carry laws. It makes their job more difficult when they have to worry about "Weekend Dirty Harrys" wandering the streets without a lick of training or know-how in dealing with a crisis situation.

Police officers are not infallible but when a cop approaches you, at least you're confident that at some point, he/she had training in crisis management and had to pass a somewhat rigorous shooting proficiency test. If a Weekend Dirty Harry approaches you with a gun, you have no such confidence in that being the case. After working in that gun shop for a couple of years, I saw all types come through the door and some of them were downright frightening. Some of the conceal/carry folks were ex-military. I have no problems with those people carrying firearms (most of the time). It was the other folks who scared the hell out of me. The people who wanted a conceal/carry permit because they were scared of something... in some cases, everything. Or maybe they had a chip on their shoulder and were itching for a fight. Those were the folks that can cause real damage and get people hurt. Those are the people who shouldn't be carrying guns in public and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a person have a reason for carrying a gun before letting them walk around with one on their hip.

I'm not against carry laws. All I want to see is a bit of screening into "why do you feel it necessary to walk around with a gun all day?"

TheLeviathan
07-15-2013, 03:18 PM
I don't expect the right-wing to wake up to their stupidity in this case (racial injustice just doesn't seem to be a concept they can understand) but I am heartened that some are waking up to the real problem here.

Some left-leaning sites actually seem to be digging into more than the surface finally (http://jezebel.com/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-coreys-press-conference-sm-778649569). The more I read about it today the more I think a prosecutor with an interest in making a name for herself duped millions of people into thinking this case was more than it really was. (Some were even predicting that before the trial even started based on the affidavit) That becomes really aggravating when you consider all the people that damages.

Shane Wahl
07-16-2013, 11:53 PM
I wasn't surprised by the verdict, but have been surprised by some reactions to it. How anyone honestly could believe that Zimmerman didn't cause this killing and thus deserves some kind of punishment is completely beyond me. If Trayvon Martin were white, Zimmerman would be in prison RIGHT NOW. If you don't believe that, you need to re-evaluate how you think about things in America.

diehardtwinsfan
07-19-2013, 06:03 AM
I worked in a gun shop for nearly two years. In the case of the police departments I dealt with on a regular basis, they were required to shoot their firearms on a fairly regular basis and there was a constant flow of police officers through our range.

On top of that, the average schmuck has no training in how to handle a crisis situation and has very little idea of when they are within the bounds of the law to shoot at someone else. There is a reason why a good percentage of police officers dislike conceal and/or carry laws. It makes their job more difficult when they have to worry about "Weekend Dirty Harrys" wandering the streets without a lick of training or know-how in dealing with a crisis situation.

Police officers are not infallible but when a cop approaches you, at least you're confident that at some point, he/she had training in crisis management and had to pass a somewhat rigorous shooting proficiency test. If a Weekend Dirty Harry approaches you with a gun, you have no such confidence in that being the case. After working in that gun shop for a couple of years, I saw all types come through the door and some of them were downright frightening. Some of the conceal/carry folks were ex-military. I have no problems with those people carrying firearms (most of the time). It was the other folks who scared the hell out of me. The people who wanted a conceal/carry permit because they were scared of something... in some cases, everything. Or maybe they had a chip on their shoulder and were itching for a fight. Those were the folks that can cause real damage and get people hurt. Those are the people who shouldn't be carrying guns in public and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a person have a reason for carrying a gun before letting them walk around with one on their hip.

I'm not against carry laws. All I want to see is a bit of screening into "why do you feel it necessary to walk around with a gun all day?"

I was with you up until your conclusion. There's a constitutional issue here, as the right to bare arms should not be infringed. I do think there's something to be said that the respect for firearms was common place back in the 1700s due to the need to do things like hunt, but it isn't as though people didn't die back then from this type of thing either.

I have a permit, though I don't own a concealable gun yet as the one I have doesn't conceal well, and I want to carry for no other reason than that you never know when you might be stuck in a theater with some idiot shooting at anyone. It may help, it may not, but I'd rather not trust my life (or my family's life) to fate or wait 5 minutes for police when I only have about 10 seconds to do something. That's a pretty valid reason that anyone can use.

Badsmerf
07-21-2013, 10:11 AM
I wasn't surprised by the verdict, but have been surprised by some reactions to it. How anyone honestly could believe that Zimmerman didn't cause this killing and thus deserves some kind of punishment is completely beyond me. If Trayvon Martin were white, Zimmerman would be in prison RIGHT NOW. If you don't believe that, you need to re-evaluate how you think about things in America.
Wow. I wish I could be eloquent right now, but I'm hung over and just trying my best to spell words correctly right now. Zimmerman would be in jail if the prosecution weren't idiots. This isn't about race, this is about definition of the law. Self defense is self defense, there is a reason we have it. This case is an illustration of how self defense can be manipulated. Don't try telling me this is about ****ing race. To Zimmerman it might have been, but to the definition of the law, it is not.

PseudoSABR
07-21-2013, 10:54 AM
This case is an illustration of how self defense can be manipulated. I agree with this. But race is certainly involved from the profiling Martin by Zimmerman to the initial non-arrest of Zimmerman by the cops. The outcome of the trial, however, had nothing to do with race, as you suggest.

TheLeviathan
07-21-2013, 11:15 AM
I agree with this. But race is certainly involved from the profiling Martin by Zimmerman to the initial non-arrest of Zimmerman by the cops. The outcome of the trial, however, had nothing to do with race, as you suggest.

"Certainly involved" - I think that's a stretch. I believe it played a role, but when and how much is utter and complete speculation. Frankly, there is as much reason to believe "hooded young person" was the profile he was looking for as it is "young black male". And you have nothing but your own biases and beliefs to fuel your decision either way. It annoys me that we talk so much about this as a certainty. Truth is, everyone of all creeds and colors, profiles for good and bad. It's just what we do. What Zimmerman was profiling is speculation. I know that offends the ears of liberals in general on this issue, but that's the truth. You can argue the subtext of "punks" (as if that's now suddenly code for race? Did every old person with a kid on their lawn mean to be racist all these years now? How conveniently these terms get used) or I could devil's advocate the idea that he never volunteered race, something I would expect a race-motivated person to do without prompting. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, the difference between me and you is that I'm not professing certainty.

Also - what were the cops supposed to do exactly? Arrest him for show just to appease people even though they had all the evidence, knew there was no case, and were actually pushing for a more appropriate charge of manslaughter while their local prosecution felt (again, based on law and evidence) that there was no case? Why are these guys the bad guys when they were just doing exactly what they should have done?

PseudoSABR
07-21-2013, 12:42 PM
Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

Look, do I know for a fact that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his race, or that the cops handled the death of a young black man differently than that of another death? Of course I don't have proof of that. But it is my belief, my opinion. It's not spurious speculation (as you frame it), it's an informed inference based on the facts of the case and my understanding of the culture at large.

I imagine the prosecution's case would have been stronger had the cops been more cynical of Zimmerman's story and treated him as a suspect murderer. Again, that's my opinion.

Honestly, latent racism is unprovable, but we shouldn't deny it's existence.

TheLeviathan
07-21-2013, 01:13 PM
Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

In my opinion it did. I'm not claiming certainty though, I could be wrong. You can't claim you believe something and that makes it "certainly involved". Whether you want to call it spurious or not, it's speculation.


I imagine the prosecution's case would have been stronger had the cops been more cynical of Zimmerman's story and treated him as a suspect murderer. Again, that's my opinion.

I imagine they would have been more cynical of his story if there was evidence that they should be. Which, even the prosecution that was trying to prop this up, couldn't do. As has been the case from the beginning of this, you're more informed by ideology than facts.


Honestly, latent racism is unprovable, but we shouldn't deny it's existence.

It's also counter-productive to say it is "certainly" involved when we are only speculating. No one denied it's existence, this is just a piss-poor example to trumpet for it.

PseudoSABR
07-21-2013, 02:15 PM
If i would have said "surely" instead of "certainly" would that be okay? It's a figure of speech really, which speaks to the confidence I have in my opinion. What's counter productive is your bullying about semantics. Anyone reading this forum realizes that I realize that I can't be completely certain of damn near anything.

No one denied it's existence, this is just a piss-poor example to trumpet for it.I'm not trumpeting anything. However, I think you're totally wrong. I think Martin's death, the Zimmerman trial, the media coverage, and the reaction to the verdict permeate with latent racism. Even if you disagree, it's hardly a piss-poor example.

TheLeviathan
07-21-2013, 03:06 PM
Anyone reading this forum realizes that I realize that I can't be completely certain of damn near anything.

What I read is exactly what is being espoused on one side of the argument and it is precisely what is meant. Anyone with the audacity (as Smerf showed) to question the certitude of the involvement of race is treated as though they are ignoring the obvious and undeniable. Most of the time it's a subtle jab at the other person as well.

The only racism in this case exists because of a mass of trumped up evidence, half truths, and media over-reaction. There are far better cases of latent racism, many of which the very same prosecution is guilty of. This is a poor example because it's such a strained, fabricated effort to do so.

PseudoSABR
07-21-2013, 03:44 PM
Anyone with the audacity (as Smerf showed) to question the certitude of the involvement of race is treated as though they are ignoring the obvious and undeniable. Most of the time it's a subtle jab at the other person as well.Huh? Are you implying that my reply to smerf was a personal jab?


The only racism in this case exists because of a mass of trumped up evidence, half truths, and media over-reaction. You can't give me heck for certitude and then express certitude about the reverse opinion. Come on.

I'm not sure what's gained by minimizing the race component. Do you really think Zimmerman and the cops (and even Martin himself) would have behaved in exactly the same manner if Martin had not been Black? I guess you're entitled to that opinion but it seems awfully forced to me.

The inability to discern whether or not the cops or Zimmerman behaved differently because Martin was Black doesn't minimize the impact on racial politics and culture.

Questlove from The Roots puts it into perspective here (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/questlove-trayvon-martin-and-i-aint-****.html).

And of course, Obama's impromptu speech does as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2PTb30JPAQQ

TheLeviathan
07-21-2013, 05:15 PM
Huh? Are you implying that my reply to smerf was a personal jab?

Nope, just way overstating the certainty.


You can't give me heck for certitude and then express certitude about the reverse opinion. Come on.

We're talking two different issues. I can say with absolute certainty (because it can be proven/disproven) that there has been false information at root in the perception of racism. I don't deny there is a perception of racism, I deny it's well founded in this case.


The inability to discern whether or not the cops or Zimmerman behaved differently because Martin was Black doesn't minimize the impact on racial politics and culture.

Well, it does because there was ample evidence to show that the cops behaved inappropriately given the evidence. I guess I'd pick one of the many, many, many examples in which they didn't to a black man rather than this.

I don't understand what is to be gained by making an issue of laws an issue of race when there are so many genuine examples of race that would be better served.

mikecgrimes
07-21-2013, 06:23 PM
Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

Look, do I know for a fact that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his race, or that the cops handled the death of a young black man differently than that of another death?

If you think race matters more then what he was wearing you're a fool. I think people want to ignore the possibility that the facts of the case didn't require Zimmerman to lie to investigators.

Brock Beauchamp
07-22-2013, 09:22 AM
I was with you up until your conclusion. There's a constitutional issue here, as the right to bare arms should not be infringed. I do think there's something to be said that the respect for firearms was common place back in the 1700s due to the need to do things like hunt, but it isn't as though people didn't die back then from this type of thing either.

I have a permit, though I don't own a concealable gun yet as the one I have doesn't conceal well, and I want to carry for no other reason than that you never know when you might be stuck in a theater with some idiot shooting at anyone. It may help, it may not, but I'd rather not trust my life (or my family's life) to fate or wait 5 minutes for police when I only have about 10 seconds to do something. That's a pretty valid reason that anyone can use.

For the first 200 years of this nation's history, nobody really complained about conceal and carry permits being very restrictive. Only in the past 30 years have we inexplicably decided that people should be allowed to carry firearms around in public pretty much anywhere they please.

This isn't a Constitutional situation. I'm not saying we should restrict who can buy that gun, only that we restrict whether that person can carry it into a packed movie theatre after they passed a test that involved little more than "this is the end that goes bang". The second amendment covers the right to own a firearm, not to do as you please with it at the expense of those around you. The courts of this nation didn't have any problems with states saying that people can't carry firearms in public (and, seeing as many states still have restrictive laws on the books regarding such matters, they still don't). I'm not advocating that the Federal government start clamping down on states for playing fast and loose with carry laws, I'm only suggesting that it's in everybody's best interest if states self-regulate and use a little common sense instead of trumpeting "you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands" every time somebody even mentions that maybe we shouldn't let fringe nutjobs walk around with a loaded Colt 1911 all day long.

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 09:57 AM
If you think race matters more then what he was wearing you're a fool. I think people want to ignore the possibility that the facts of the case didn't require Zimmerman to lie to investigators.Oh the ole hoodie condemnation!! How thoughtful of you, Geraldo Rivera. Good thing white people never wear hoodies in the rain. Zimmerman did lie over and over. Maybe that was out of fear of injustice, but it's pretty clear he lied when talking to investigators, but you probably know that with how much homework you've done on the issue, being so unfoolish.

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 10:05 AM
Well, it does because there was ample evidence to show that the cops behaved inappropriately given the evidence. I guess I'd pick one of the many, many, many examples in which they didn't to a black man rather than this. Sure there's thousands of better examples, but none have the exposure or the culture resonance to spur a meaningful debate. It's a bit maddening that debate with you is so often about the terms of the debate rather than debate itself. (Don't use this example, you can't be so certain, etc.)

It's wishful thinking to suggest the cultural debate should rally around the best and most precise instances of social injustice. Even with poor examples, we can reveal meaningful social truths (as I tried to point out above); in my opinion any which way a debate about social injustice can happen at public level is a good one, and one that we'd be foolish to pass up.

TheLeviathan
07-22-2013, 12:43 PM
Sure there's thousands of better examples, but none have the exposure or the culture resonance to spur a meaningful debate. It's a bit maddening that debate with you is so often about the terms of the debate rather than debate itself. (Don't use this example, you can't be so certain, etc.)

It's wishful thinking to suggest the cultural debate should rally around the best and most precise instances of social injustice. Even with poor examples, we can reveal meaningful social truths (as I tried to point out above); in my opinion any which way a debate about social injustice can happen at public level is a good one, and one that we'd be foolish to pass up.

The terms are always important. The very nature of our political discord is rooted in that problem. Both sides set their own terms and then wonder why the debate never gets anywhere. The discourse will never reach meaningful conclusions.

I doubt you accept the terms from an anti-abortion person that the practice is murder before you talk constitutionality. The issue is here that you like your terms so much but can't see how they get in the way of the issue. For example, I think there is a lot of racial injustice in the system, but having it in this context is irrelevant. So it matters a ton.

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 12:55 PM
The terms are always important. The very nature of our political discord is rooted in that problem. Both sides set their own terms and then wonder why the debate never gets anywhere. The discourse will never reach meaningful conclusions.

I doubt you accept the terms from an anti-abortion person that the practice is murder before you talk constitutionality. The issue is here that you like your terms so much but can't see how they get in the way of the issue. For example, I think there is a lot of racial injustice in the system, but having it in this context is irrelevant. So it matters a ton.Again you're being idealistic. Debating the terms of the debate can be as endless and fruitless as the debate itself.

While I do agree with you in the abstract, in this instance, I'm not sure how helpful you've been in engendering a fruitful discussion. The distinctions/terms you are making seem awfully petty in light of your murder/abortion analogy.

My larger point is that, without incidents like Zimmerman-Martin, people just don't have this conversation, and you're totally dismissing that point. While their might be better examples of racial and social injustice, this case provides a common touchstone for us to have an actual conversation.

TheLeviathan
07-22-2013, 03:37 PM
Again you're being idealistic. Debating the terms of the debate can be as endless and fruitless as the debate itself.

Well, it's that or you don't have a discussion. Do you really think this left-driven debate on this issue is getting anywhere? It's not, in fact it's emboldening the other side of the aisle in states that have these laws and it's missing the point entirely.

You are getting high and mighty about this because these are your terms, so you want them respected and honored in the debate. You think they are a "common touchtone", but they are really just your touchtones. You won't get commonality if you don't have it in the terms of the discussion. If the roles were reversed, you'd easily dismiss them as well. But instead you come after a reasonable guy like Smerf who disagrees with you because you have to make sure your terms are the field for debate. It just alienates those that disagree. That's precisely what we are seeing nationally.

This case only got national attention on the back of a bunch of distortions and exaggerations of the case initially. Hell, you held on those distortions well into the actual case, utterly ignoring the actual evidence. Let's find one of the many other cases in which young black men were treated unfairly. I'm sure we can find hundreds of them the media didn't exploit falsely for ratings to have a real discussion. The problem is, that's too much work. Easier to just inflame a case that most people have about 10-20% grip on what actually happened.

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 05:22 PM
Do you really think this left-driven debate on this issue is getting anywhere? Dude, I'd have a lot more respect for your point if you showed the same investment in policing conservative assumptions/terms (which are littered throughout this thread and the forum in general), which you rarely do if at all. I mean you're acting like your approaching the conversation from objective point of view. You're not.


This case only got national attention on the back of a bunch of distortions and exaggerations of the case initially. Hell, you held on those distortions well into the actual case, utterly ignoring the actual evidence. No, it got national intention because of public outcry--the sensationalism came later. And, no, I didn't ignore the facts of the case I drew different conclusions from those facts. I don't want to get into arguing about the case again.

And how the heck to did I "come after" Smerf--who was pretty aggressive in his response to Shane for pete's sake. The first sentence of my post responding to Smerf was "I agree with this."

TheLeviathan
07-22-2013, 05:37 PM
Dude, I'd have a lot more respect for your point if you showed the same investment in policing conservative assumptions/terms (which are littered throughout this thread and the forum in general),

Um, 9:03am on 7/15 in this very thread. How about the gay marriage thread with the dude who thought he could use "logic" to defeat it? How about anytime hornhead shows up to defend privatizing education? I can't help that those posters haven't been around as much lately. If you want to pose as one for me to criticize, go for it, but this accusation is utterly baseless.

You just don't like your comfy liberalism having some light shown on it. Lefties, on this issue, think they have some kind of moral high ground because they have fabricated the terms of this debate around a case that is minimally about race. Most of what you base your terms on were totally fabricated by the media to hype this case into the national spotlight - from showing 12 year old Trayvon, to minimizing the confrontation, to altering the phone call, to turning "punks" into a racial term. (People still think he somehow said "coon" - which is utterly false) I'm sorry, but this isn't a clear case of racial injustice no matter how much you want it to be and the country won't have a meaningful debate on this until that is realized.

In fact, I'd argue Obama and even Holder have realized this fact in recent days and backed off their rhetoric to focus more on the heavily flawed self-defense laws. (Laws, if you'll remember back on BYTO, I was calling the real source of the problem from Day 1. Not race.)

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 06:01 PM
Um, 9:03am on 7/15 in this very thread. How about the gay marriage thread with the dude who thought he could use "logic" to defeat it? How about anytime hornhead shows up to defend privatizing education? I can't help that those posters haven't been around as much lately. If you want to pose as one for me to criticize, go for it, but this accusation is utterly baseless.Like I said rare. I can't imagine anyone whose watched you debate with others over the years would disagree. It's fine dude, you're conservative, but you're reasonable, so it's interesting to debate with you. (And really calling out the crazies from either side, does nothing to diminish one's own bias).


You just don't like your comfy liberalism having some light shown on it. Lefties, on this issue, think they have some kind of moral high ground because they have fabricated the terms of this debate around a case that is minimally about race. Dude, you're coming at me! You trying to call me out for being rude and dismissive of other points of view, and you're doing exactly that. You consistently use the word Lefty as a pejorative and rudely try to frame my thinking as some liberal heathen hell bent on finding racism in everyone. I think my tone and my reasoning has been pretty diplomatic, even if you don't agree with them. Honestly, you haven't showed me the same courtesy.

And really, do you think I'm so dull-witted to let the media shape my point view so thoroughly, I can see through the media sensationalism and still believe this is an incident of racial injustice--and that race played a role, as you said. (Certainty, aside, which as I said, was more a figure of speech about the the confidence in my opinion).


focus more on the heavily flawed self-defense laws. (Laws, if you'll remember back on BYTO, I was calling the real source of the problem from Day 1. Not race.)Like Smerf said, which I agreed with! That doesn't mean that race wasn't involved in what happened that night and the following days. And to say the 'real' source of the problem is exactly the kind of rhetoric that should bother you. There is no one 'real' problem; it's absurd to rank the problems in terms of realness. I realize that your use of real is a colloquial as my use of certainly; but the irony here is palatable.

It's fine that you disagree about whether or not race was involved that night (and I'm not even sure that you do), but to suggest I am trying to shape the terms (by using the term 'certainly' as opposed to 'real) so the debate favors me is totally false and does me a disservice.

And if I remember correctly you thought Zimmerman was going to be found guilty of manslaughter--now that he wasn't you don't see some injustice in that? I just don't really understand why you're coming at me so hard.

TheLeviathan
07-22-2013, 06:03 PM
Like I said rare. I guess what they say is that one's ideology is invisible. (And really calling out the crazies from either side, does nothing to diminish one's own bias).

Sticking with that baseless claim huh? Wow. I'm just going to leave it right there, I have nothing to say past that.

PseudoSABR
07-22-2013, 06:12 PM
Sticking with that baseless claim huh? Wow. I'm just going to leave it right there, I have nothing to say past that.
I cleaned it up a little, while you were quoting it. But yeah, I stand by that you treat reasonable liberals* far different than you do reasonable conservatives.

*I suppose this opens up to how unreasonable and crazy I am, and how liberalism itself is some exercise in illogic.

Brock Beauchamp
07-22-2013, 06:14 PM
Okay, this conversation needs to steer itself into a more productive direction or the thread is going to be locked. If it continues down this path, locks and bans and all that fun stuff will be handed out. Tread lightly.

glunn
07-22-2013, 06:18 PM
Please tone this down my friends. We allow a bit of extra latitude on non-baseball threads, but this is getting out of hand. You can debate passionately, but the labeling and disrespect need to stop.

biggentleben
07-22-2013, 09:34 PM
deleted by admin

Wow. Really?

Brock Beauchamp
07-22-2013, 09:35 PM
deleted by admin

Blatant violation of the rules immediately following two moderators telling the thread to cool it.

I mean, come on.

diehardtwinsfan
07-23-2013, 05:07 PM
I cannot help but think that this argument over racism completely misses the point. Murder is murder. Manslaughter is manslaughter. If I murder someone b/c I hate black people, it doesn't make my crime any worse than if I killed someone because I wanted to know what it was like.

To me, race really clouds this issue. We have a dead kid right now whose death could have been prevented. The issue at hand is not whether or not Zimmerman was racist... It doesn't matter. The issue is whether Zimmerman was negligent in the way he acted so as to lead up to the death of Martin. The question I cannot seem to personally get beyond is that he tailed a 17 year old kid in a car and then on foot. What would a reasonble and prudent indvidual do when they realize they are being followed in that manner? What should they do? Go talk to him? Run? Defend themselves?

I know personally, I'd be looking for a weapon, because I may need to stand my ground. Martin clearly thought he needed to do that. Perhaps he was being a hothead, but simply based on the undisputed facts, this situation was preventable. I could care less WHY Zimmerman followed Martin. I dont' think it matters. What does matter is that there's a dead kid out there, and that death would have been preventable had Zimmerman followed the rules of the neighborhood watch that he was a part of.

PseudoSABR
07-23-2013, 07:19 PM
I don't want to take away from the issues you raise, because I believe they are important, but there's lots of issue at hand--please read what Questlove wrote in the article above and even listen Obama's speech. For a young Black man to walk around at night alone, this kind of case certainly makes them feel more unsafe. What issues are important has to do with who you are, and the social/cultural vantage from which you come. If one person wishes to discuss the racial injustice the incidences raise, it doesn't diminish in anyway the conversation you wish to have. I just want to add that, I don't really care to debate it all over again.

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 12:35 AM
Just to be clear, never thought Pseudo was being a dick to me (he's a softy and I'm usually the one being a dick). I've been busy and haven't been able to comment, sorry for missing the convo comrades.

Why does race have to be pulled into any situation where a white person kills a black person? It goes the other way easily as often and for blatant racism that doesn't get near the attention. I understand racism is bad, but the story being inflated into something that wasn't supported by evidence has led to a murder being without any justice. Zimmerman acted in a way that was negligent, not in a way that he hated black kids.

If anyone wants to debate black people getting profiled we can start a different thread about it, as I don't think that is really what this thread is about. There are many cases I would agree that racism is a motivation, this is not one. Hooded teenager, regardless of color would have been in his radar.

I'm also in the camp that "hate" crimes are a shortsighted attempt by the courts to end racism. I don't agree that we can attribute special circumstances to a crime that was done for any specific reason. We don't punish sex offenders more severely if they like boys more than girls. In fact, in order to classify a "hate" crime you have to prove what motivated it, which is much different than actually proving if a crime was committed.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 12:13 PM
Why does race have to be pulled into any situation where a white person kills a black person? It goes the other way easily as often and for blatant racism that doesn't get near the attention. I understand racism is bad, but the story being inflated into something that wasn't supported by evidence has led to a murder being without any justice. Zimmerman acted in a way that was negligent, not in a way that he hated black kids.

Actually, I think this point is exactly why race should be talked about in this case. It's not that Zimmerman is a blatant racist; he may or may not be... I don't really know.

It's the kind of creeping, pervasive racism that is really a problem in this country. We look down at people who walk around, using the N-word and outwardly speaking out against black people. That's not the problem. Those people are easily identified and called out as racist by the general public.

What should be the real concern in the Zimmerman trial is "Would he have followed a white kid?" He may have, he may not have... We don't know. But, given the plethora of evidence we have as a society, there was a higher chance that he'd view a black child suspiciously. As a society, we still have a real problem with the casual perception of race; black people are generally viewed more negatively than white people, even when they're just going about their day doing normal things.

And that's a huge problem. And that's why we need to talk about these kinds of things. The Zimmerman case might not be the best example but it's in the public eye and we shouldn't pass up the opportunity to think and talk about why we perceive these inequalities as a society because they sure aren't going to fix themselves if everybody just keeps quiet about it.

ChiTownTwinsFan
07-24-2013, 01:10 PM
Actually, I think this point is exactly why race should be talked about in this case. It's not that Zimmerman is a blatant racist; he may or may not be... I don't really know.

It's the kind of creeping, pervasive racism that is really a problem in this country. We look down at people who walk around, using the N-word and outwardly speaking out against black people. That's not the problem. Those people are easily identified and called out as racist by the general public.

What should be the real concern in the Zimmerman trial is "Would he have followed a white kid?" He may have, he may not have... We don't know. But, given the plethora of evidence we have as a society, there was a higher chance that he'd view a black child suspiciously. As a society, we still have a real problem with the casual perception of race; black people are generally viewed more negatively than white people, even when they're just going about their day doing normal things.

And that's a huge problem. And that's why we need to talk about these kinds of things. The Zimmerman case might not be the best example but it's in the public eye and we shouldn't pass up the opportunity to think and talk about why we perceive these inequalities as a society because they sure aren't going to fix themselves if everybody just keeps quiet about it.

Thank you! Exactly! It's not the overt cases, it's other times when it may be more subtle or even subconscious. My best friend is black. While I don't know all her stories, I know enough of them and have witnessed a few. It's subtle ... being ignored unintentionally, or intentionally, the hesitation, double takes, people walking around us ... but it's there. We all have experienced 'that' feeling when you walk into a room and the atmosphere changes, not knowing what or why. Imagine that being the case a majority of the time. And most of the time people do not even realize they are treating anyone any differently. I can't even say with certainty I have never done this. I ride the buses in Chicago, the ones heading to the south side that are predominantly black. Have I ever made the choice to stand toward the front rather than take an empty seat in the back for some subconscious reason? I notice others doing this all the time. Anyway, while the 'race issue' is not the reason to try or not try Zimmerman for killing Martin, the discussion of 'Would this have happened if ...' is very valid.

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 02:10 PM
I'm going to call a name, Brock, if you want you can edit my post. Naive. That is what people are that ask this question about race. You want to know why black males get racially profiled?

Project America: Crime: Prison Population: Prison Population by Race (http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174)

Quick and dirty graph, but it illustrates why. Black males are far and away the most likely profile to be in jail. Now, I understand there are other factors that can contribute to black males being in jail more often than white males. However, the discrepancy is far too great to attribute it to simple things like money to fight cases (especially since that itself is profiling white males). That is my problem with people pulling the race card. Simply put, the numbers support black males being more likely to commit crimes. I've seen this in many more places than this one site, and would be open to anyone providing real evidence that states otherwise.

Just like in baseball, when the numbers point to something so obvious, you can't just ignore it. Part of the problem is "the system" but there is also a cultural problem. Anyone that has spent time in urban Minneapolis can attest to the diseased attitude that exists there.

Since we want to discuss race in this case, I think you have a point Brock. However, I would be playing the numbers (like L vs. R splits IMO) if I found a young black male that looked suspicious. Is that racism or is that recognizing trends? This is where I believe things get too murky. If the black community wants to stop this they need to stop getting put in jail. I'm sure somebody will have evidence that refutes what I've written, and I claim to be no expert in racial criminal justice.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 02:11 PM
Thank you! Exactly! It's not the overt cases, it's other times when it may be more subtle or even subconscious. My best friend is black. While I don't know all her stories, I know enough of them and have witnessed a few. It's subtle ... being ignored unintentionally, or intentionally, the hesitation, double takes, people walking around us ... but it's there. We all have experienced 'that' feeling when you walk into a room and the atmosphere changes, not knowing what or why. Imagine that being the case a majority of the time. And most of the time people do not even realize they are treating anyone any differently. I can't even say with certainty I have never done this. I ride the buses in Chicago, the ones heading to the south side that are predominantly black. Have I ever made the choice to stand toward the front rather than take an empty seat in the back for some subconscious reason? I notice others doing this all the time. Anyway, while the 'race issue' is not the reason to try or not try Zimmerman for killing Martin, the discussion of 'Would this have happened if ...' is very valid.

We've all done it. I've caught myself doing it more times than I can count. Hell, most of my black friends admit that they do it. It's almost an instinctual reaction and that's just wrong... But it will never be fixed unless we make a conscious decision to do it and opening discourse about it is the only way to make that happen. Trying to brush every race-related thing under the rug because the peg doesn't fit the hole just right isn't going to get us anywhere.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 02:16 PM
I'm going to call a name, Brock, if you want you can edit my post. Naive. That is what people are that ask this question about race. You want to know why black males get racially profiled?

Project America: Crime: Prison Population: Prison Population by Race (http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174)

Quick and dirty graph, but it illustrates why. Black males are far and away the most likely profile to be in jail. Now, I understand there are other factors that can contribute to black males being in jail more often than white males. However, the discrepancy is far too great to attribute it to simple things like money to fight cases (especially since that itself is profiling white males). That is my problem with people pulling the race card. Simply put, the numbers support black males being more likely to commit crimes. I've seen this in many more places than this one site, and would be open to anyone providing real evidence that states otherwise.

Just like in baseball, when the numbers point to something so obvious, you can't just ignore it. Part of the problem is "the system" but there is also a cultural problem. Anyone that has spent time in urban Minneapolis can attest to the diseased attitude that exists there.

Since we want to discuss race in this case, I think you have a point Brock. However, I would be playing the numbers (like L vs. R splits IMO) if I found a young black male that looked suspicious. Is that racism or is that recognizing trends? This is where I believe things get too murky. If the black community wants to stop this they need to stop getting put in jail. I'm sure somebody will have evidence that refutes what I've written, and I claim to be no expert in racial criminal justice.

Well, to refute your point succintly:

Black men are punished far more harshly than their white counterparts for the same crime. It's not that they're punished a little more... They're punished a lot more.

I know you're not doing this intentionally but you're kinda blaming black people for being... well, black. This isn't entirely a "black problem" (though I'm certainly not refuting that culture does play a part in this situation). It's an "everybody problem". White people need to stop treating black people differently. The middle class needs to stop looking down at the poor. Black people need to re-evaluate who they look up to and respect within their own communities as role models.

This is on everybody. It's way to easy to cast blame for one thing or another but when we get right down to it, this problem is way too big to be the fault of any one group of people (though it's hard to deny that white men share the biggest slice of the blame for this one).

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 02:19 PM
Trying to brush every race-related thing under the rug because the peg doesn't fit the hole just right isn't going to get us anywhere.
I completely agree. But the bigger question should be why is this happening! I don't think the answer is quick and easy. I don't think ending racism is the answer or realistic. I think the answer is more complicated and more difficult, which is why it has been a major problem for nearly a century. I really haven't spent enough time in discussions, research, or time spent brainstorming to come up with a valid solution (we all know I could if I wanted to though).

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 02:25 PM
I completely agree. But the bigger question should be why is this happening! I don't think the answer is quick and easy. I don't think ending racism is the answer or realistic. I think the answer is more complicated and more difficult, which is why it has been a major problem for nearly a century. I really haven't spent enough time in discussions, research, or time spent brainstorming to come up with a valid solution (we all know I could if I wanted to though).

Agreed. While the type of subversive racism I've talked about mostly needs to dealt with on a personal level, the biggest cure for racism in America is fixing the increasing gap in socio-economic status. Being poor is a huge hurdle... Being poor and black (as so many are)... well, you're pretty much screwed at that point.

Narrow that gap a bit and many of the racism problems start to dissipate a little. It won't make them go away but it will help a whole bunch.

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 02:31 PM
I understand your points Brock, and I think you have some very valid points. At the very base of the issue though, I blame the people who are committing the crimes. It is the personal responsibility model I have been raised by which looks at an event that happens and the easiest way to change the outcome is by my actions. Outside influences only play a part. I don't disagree with the sentencing being proportional, I don't disagree that white people play a part or that lower class citizens deserve to have more respect. However, it isn't easy to respect a group of people (not all BTW) that are in the position they are for the continued choices they make.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 02:37 PM
I understand your points Brock, and I think you have some very valid points. At the very base of the issue though, I blame the people who are committing the crimes. It is the personal responsibility model I have been raised by which looks at an event that happens and the easiest way to change the outcome is by my actions. Outside influences only play a part. I don't disagree with the sentencing being proportional, I don't disagree that white people play a part or that lower class citizens deserve to have more respect. However, it isn't easy to respect a group of people (not all BTW) that are in the position they are for the continued choices they make.

I'm not absolving people of their crimes at all. They need to be punished for committing a crime.

On the other hand, society should try harder to give poor people (poor black people in particular) better options that don't involve committing crimes. When you have nothing, no one around you has nothing, and there are no prospects for you to ever have anything, why not commit a crime? At that point, what do you really have to lose as a person? Your freedom? Who cares?

To dissuade people from committing a crime, first you have to make their life outside jail of a high enough quality where they actually feel as if they're losing something by going to jail. Increasing punishment isn't a deterrent because their life outside jail is so awful to begin with. It's like threatening to take away a blind man's eyeglasses as extra punishment. What does he care?

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 02:38 PM
How are you going to narrow that gap? I struggle with this too. I believe the gap is far far too wide between the socioeconomic groups. The rich are too rich and the poor too poor. The distribution used to be much more gradual, and now... exponential would be an understatement. I feel liberal when I look at it (and a little dirty and sexy at the same time...). But it is real. Outside of taking this money away from these people, I don't see it changing. Unfortunately this reality is the America that we live in. It is not the opportunistic society that existed 30 years ago.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 02:44 PM
How are you going to narrow that gap? I struggle with this too. I believe the gap is far far too wide between the socioeconomic groups. The rich are too rich and the poor too poor. The distribution used to be much more gradual, and now... exponential would be an understatement. I feel liberal when I look at it (and a little dirty and sexy at the same time...). But it is real. Outside of taking this money away from these people, I don't see it changing. Unfortunately this reality is the America that we live in. It is not the opportunistic society that existed 30 years ago.

I've always believed that we need to start with education. Tear the throat out of the American education system. Break the teacher's union who fight every change, whether it's good for the kids or not. Pay teachers a competitive wage to attract more of the best and brightest. Destroy the faculty system that eats far too many of the school's resources for so little direct involvement with the kids. Restructure this asinine 185 day school year that is based around friggin' farm seasons. Stop basing school funding on property tax revenue. I mean, COME ON. Blow the whole damned thing up.

It's a long-term fix but IMO, it's the smartest fix we could make.

Badsmerf
07-24-2013, 02:45 PM
To ask the same question, which you'll probably answer before I'm done posting, is how? I've struggled to get where I'm at and I come from a wealthy family and have a good education. Salaries at lower end jobs just don't provide enough incentive for people to not only just keep them, but accept them in the first place. I'm starting to think Fight Club isn't a bad idea.

TheLeviathan
07-24-2013, 03:40 PM
I've always believed that we need to start with education. Tear the throat out of the American education system. Break the teacher's union who fight every change, whether it's good for the kids or not. Pay teachers a competitive wage to attract more of the best and brightest. Destroy the faculty system that eats far too many of the school's resources for so little direct involvement with the kids. Restructure this asinine 185 day school year that is based around friggin' farm seasons. Stop basing school funding on property tax revenue. I mean, COME ON. Blow the whole damned thing up.

It's a long-term fix but IMO, it's the smartest fix we could make.

For the record, I used to be on the school schedule thing myself. Extensive research shows that it's actually not better for anyone to go year round, or at least, it doesn't bring anything more. Your last revenue is really the key to this issue and why it is so critical to resist voucher systems. (I'd argue the faculty systems point is a bit odd, education is a people-heavy system, the more people you have working with kids, the better. The cost that is really sky-rocketing is special education and that is an issue all to itself)

At the same time, it will be critical for those schools to make sure they are safe, respectful, disciplined, and that education is valued in the community. Good ideas for this would be uniforms, strong faculty, and a lot of community outreach.

Brock Beauchamp
07-24-2013, 05:31 PM
For the record, I used to be on the school schedule thing myself. Extensive research shows that it's actually not better for anyone to go year round, or at least, it doesn't bring anything more. Your last revenue is really the key to this issue and why it is so critical to resist voucher systems. (I'd argue the faculty systems point is a bit odd, education is a people-heavy system, the more people you have working with kids, the better. The cost that is really sky-rocketing is special education and that is an issue all to itself)

At the same time, it will be critical for those schools to make sure they are safe, respectful, disciplined, and that education is valued in the community. Good ideas for this would be uniforms, strong faculty, and a lot of community outreach.

I'm not necessarily advocating year-round schools as much as I'm advocating a longer school year. The US goes to school for less days than most other industrialized countries. The side effect is that nine month school would be largely eliminated.

My point about faculty is about support staff, not teachers. I'm all for more teachers. I'm not in favor of $150k principal salaries (but even principals are better than district-level employees, who swallow up too much money that should be directed straight to the schools themselves).

TheLeviathan
07-24-2013, 05:44 PM
I'm not necessarily advocating year-round schools as much as I'm advocating a longer school year. The US goes to school for less days than most other industrialized countries. The side effect is that nine month school would be largely eliminated.

But we go about the same as Finland who far out-achieves us. I'm not so sure that issue is all that relevant. We could extend it slightly, but it's probably a moot issue. At least that's what research/studies are showing.


My point about faculty is about support staff, not teachers. I'm all for more teachers. I'm not in favor of $150k principal salaries (but even principals are better than district-level employees, who swallow up too much money that should be directed straight to the schools themselves).

Well, that's more administrative. "Support staff" can be misleading because that can include para-professionals which is a position most schools are desperately thin on because the pay is so low and the job is so crappy. I'd agree that districts could be leaner - I'd actually like to see them increase teacher pay significiantly to take on some of those roles. Or to have multiple hats on one person (curriculum advisor, tech coordinator, etc.)

diehardtwinsfan
07-25-2013, 04:19 PM
I completely agree. But the bigger question should be why is this happening! I don't think the answer is quick and easy. I don't think ending racism is the answer or realistic. I think the answer is more complicated and more difficult, which is why it has been a major problem for nearly a century. I really haven't spent enough time in discussions, research, or time spent brainstorming to come up with a valid solution (we all know I could if I wanted to though).

Truthfully, I don't think the answer here is race. It's family.

If you look at family structures, one thing you can say for certain is that the lack of a stable two parent family correlates much better to crime rates than the color of one's skin. If a kid grows up without a dad, he's far more likely to be in the system.

I'm not advocating forcing society to stick to a two person family is not the answer, but I don't think you can have this discussion and ignore that data.