The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-25-2013, 02:00 PM   #91
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
What bothers me most about Zimmerman is that he's not a cop or authority of any kind. He was told by the cops twice (once when he signed up for the watch group, and once when on the phone that night) not to confront suspicious people.

Because he got himself into a situation when he had no training or business someone ended up dead. In my mind, that's negligence. It would be like if I wired the electricity for my neighborhood pool and winded up electrocuting a bunch of swimmers because I'm not an electrician. Zimmerman deliberately went into that situation against the wishes of the police. He fucked up and killed an unarmed guy who wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman got involved.

I don't think it was murder. He was probably defending himself from a guy who thought he was defending himself. But is was gross incompetence on Zimmerman's part that resulted in a death.

I think it would be just and reasonable to find him guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 02:03 PM   #92
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Oh, and you can't trust a damn word Zimmerman says. Don't forget that he lied under oath to the judge about his assets during the bail proceedings.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 02:18 PM   #93
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Ahh, I hadnt realised that.

One thing that puzzles me is that it was a jury of 6 people. Is that normal?
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 02:44 PM   #94
chrisinhouston
Professor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 1,857
Seems like those on the right defend Zimmerman and the verdict and those on the left feel it was a sham of justice. I'm fairly independent in my political beliefs so while I don't like the jury's decision I realize it was based on their belief in what both sides legal teams told them and what the judge allowed them to consider, only what they heard at the trial and the law and how it pertains to the charges against Mr. Zimmerman.

I find it tragic that Mr. Martin got killed for the reasons he did, despite what idiots like Ted Nugent claim and justify his death that he was a kid who was a criminal dope smoking racist gangster punk! While his actions in defending himself may have led to his being killed, he was not in the act of a crime when he was initially stalked, just walking home from the store.

And I agree that not enough is being done to address inner city crime, black on black homicides in places like Chicago. But the causes of the high rate of homicides there is caused by different reasons. The inner city parts of Chicago have a high rate of gang participation among teens and young adults. High unemployment rate among the same group. A poorly run educational system combined with a lack of desire among students (and parents) for kids to complete high school (50% drop out rate). High rate of single parent families combined with too few youth programs allowing youth to wander without adult supervision. They also have one other key factor, it is very easy to obtain guns and plenty of them. Ofcourse the NRA would not see this as a problem but a solution and more guns would somehow make better!

I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread, in my opinion it is getting a bit to partisan, kind of like a trolling. I respect the views of other Cellar dwellers, that is why I have been a member here long before other social networks got popular. But when I read a post on how Congressman Darrell Issa is some kind of hero and Eric Holder is liar and that all of these scandals have so much more to them when the facts show that Mr. Issa is more of an Inquisitor searching for crimes that don't exist. Next I'll be reading that the President is not really a US citizen!

Have fun folks and see you elsewhere!
chrisinhouston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 05:51 PM   #95
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Everybody on both sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow

- Most people decided on the correct narrative without having many facts. They put the story into their picture of the world so that it confirms their views. Their views on race, Florida's "stand your ground" gun laws, how cops behave, gated communities, how black teenagers behave, how juries work, etc. The story must fit into everyone's notions of these things. Even though it didn't happen in a gated community, "stand your ground" was not really relevant to the case, standard black teen behavior has nothing to do with anything at all here, etc.

- When the facts are not consistent with someone's narrative, those facts are ignored, or even changed. People actually rewrite the information so that it fits, and use colorful, emotional language that has nothing to do with the case.

- At some point, almost everyone's information about the case is basically wrong, because everyone they listen to has rewritten the facts to fit.

- For example, in the first 3 days following the event, we heard that "A black man was killed by a white man and the cops just let him go for no reason." This narrative was pushed early and often, and it should give people pause that this opening story was factually wrong and oversimplified. Already the facts are mangled in order to maximize outrage. Many people made up their mind at that point, and everything they've heard since then has been run through their narrative filtering, their opinion left unchanged.
This is the most sweeping generalization I've ever seen you post. Your use of absolutes and imperatives make it practically unreadable. Everybody has... MUST follow ?!?! Really? You speak for Everybody now? Do you include yourself among that number? Are you helplessly following *your* narrative? If that's the case, then we're all predestined to just talk past each other, right? And if it's not, I'd love to hear how you managed to rise above all of this and see all these different sides from outside the frame of reference we all use down here.

It seems your definition of "facts" is different than the one I use. How can facts be changed, say, in the example where they're not consistent with my narrative?

I think the conflict and arguing surrounding this case is much less about facts, and much more about judgements, decisions, feelings, opinions, and attitudes. Facts are objectively knowable. The fuel for the arguments is far more subjective, and when lit with a spark of right or wrong, burns with a righteous fire. THAT'S what's generating the heat here.

I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives. I do like your use of the term "narrative", I think is very appropriate. There are as many narratives as there are observers, and those narratives can include or exclude all kinds of facts, important and unimportant. Discussion about these narratives, defending them, attacking others, changing them (I do believe a person's narrative/opinion can change) is important, is imperative for our community and our society as a whole. Striving for a "correct" narrative is important for most people, though "correct" can be defined in different ways. Factually correct? That's a standard that our judicial system strives toward, and one that many people have an interest in. Emotionally correct, or to use your image, a set of circumstances and descriptions that conform to the conclusion I've already settled on? I think far more people give this kind of correctness the highest priority. Perhaps this is a point we agree on. But I don't agree that everyone picks their conclusion first never changes it, then finds "facts" that support the conclusion, disregarding all the others. There are people who try to let the facts lead to the conclusion.

I don't think that the facts were mangled to maximize outrage, I'm not that much of a cynic. I agree that the facts in cases like this, or Benghazi ffs, are often mangled, especially at the outset and especially when the shape of the story is highly emotional or dramatic. These are the kinds of situations that much media newscasting makes their bank on, "Flashy, breathless, jumpcut! Stay tuned for more after this message!!!11" Ok, consider the source. There can be facts embedded in the dross of commercial news/opinion/media. It takes effort and discernment to suss them out, but it's possible. I can't be on the scene(s), so I depend on reporting to help me gather the information, then I try to assess which parts are actually factually correct, which are not, which are opinion, useful or not, which are hyperbole, which are salesmanship to get me to pay (attention) for something the speaker's selling. It *is* work, but it's the only way I know how to get at what really happened.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 06:02 PM   #96
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives.
show me where I implied that please
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 06:10 PM   #97
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Everybody on **both** sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow

--snip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
show me where I implied that please
To me, "both" implies just two.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 08:51 PM   #98
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Interesting little piece in the guardian about an interview given by one of the jurors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ot-away-murder

Quote:
a second juror in the trial of George Zimmerman has given a TV interview saying the former neighborhood watch volunteer "got away with murder" when he was acquitted earlier this month in the shooting death of black, unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

The woman, identified in court as juror B29, who is part Hispanic, said she would have liked to convict Zimmerman of murdering Martin but said her hands were tied by a lack of evidence.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," she told ABC's Robin Roberts in an interview due to be aired on Friday morning. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence," the woman said

-snip-

a white Hispanic man, was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter on July 13 after a racially charged trial. The verdict triggered demonstrations across the United States.

The jurors have remained anonymous under a judge's order. Juror B29 allowed her face to be shown, but used only the name Maddy. ABC said the 36-year-old woman is Puerto Rican and that she recently moved to Florida from Chicago. She is a nursing assistant and mother of eight.

Juror B29 is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face.

Juror B37, a mother of two who grew up in a military family, appeared last week on CNN with her face obscured. She said she believed Zimmerman, 29, was "justified" in shooting Martin, 17, during a confrontation in a gated community in central Florida in February 2012.

She said she did not think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin and believed Martin attacked Zimmerman first.

-snip-

Juror B29 agreed with B37 that the case was never about race, despite accusations by the prosecution that Zimmerman had profiled Martin when he called police to report someone acting suspiciously in the community near Orlando.

The prosecution accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin and following him in the manner of a vigilante. Zimmerman's lawyers said he acted in self-defense after Martin started beating his head against a concrete sidewalk.

Whatever the truth, juror B29 said Zimmerman had a lot to answer for.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said, "the law couldn't prove it."
When the jury began deliberations, she said she initially favored convicting Zimmerman. "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

On the second day of deliberations she realized there was not enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law, she said.

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, the juror said, "I don't think so." She added, "I felt like this was a publicity stunt."

She said that after the trial had ended, she wrestled with her decision and had a hard time sleeping and eating. She said she feels she owes Martin's parents an apology.

"I'm hurting as much as Trayvon Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said.
My thoughts when I read this, were that a) the jury system worked: they didn't go with what their gut told them, they went with what was or was not proven, and b) having reached that decision they need to stfu about him being guilty and 'getting away with murder'.

By all means say the decision was based on insufficient evidence, or poor practice on the part of investigators or prosecutors. And the implication that had the quality of that investigation or prosecution been better, then there might have been a different outcome seems valid and fair. But to suggest that there would have been a different outcome, without knowing what different evidence could have been brought to bear is a very different matter.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:10 PM   #99
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
... What I find appalling is the notion, expressed by several people in this thread, that this kid brought about his own death. That he was 'too stupid to live'.
If you've read my previous posts, then you know I've said Zimmerman was the adult responsible for controlling that situation and he failed to live up to his responsibility. That Zimmerman killed Martin doesn't change the fact that Martin was too naïve (I did use the word naïve in a previous post) to act with the discretion necessary to save his own life. It's not an either - or situation and that you are appalled by anyone saying, in the vernacular, that Martin was too stupid to live reflects your home bred ignorance of reality in a country that sanctions private firearms ownership and carry.

We have another deadly implement here. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's called the automobile. We have people who learn to drive at an early age (16 y.o.), pass a test, then they're out on the street. Some learners and even experienced drivers also take a Defensive Driving Course in which they learn how to go out of their way to avoid collisions EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY! The purpose of that mindset is to save lives and prevent egregious bodily injury, especially to the young ones who may fall victim to the failings of older more experienced drivers.

The times they are a changing. All 50 states in the USA now have concealed carry laws. Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE.

I'm not a particularly religious man; but, at times like this I thank God that people like you and tw don't have children. They'd be no better off than Trayvon Martin.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:41 PM   #100
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
So I did. alrighty then
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 11:58 PM   #101
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
What bothers me most about Zimmerman is that he's not a cop or authority of any kind. He was told by the cops twice (once when he signed up for the watch group, and once when on the phone that night) not to confront suspicious people.

Because he got himself into a situation when he had no training or business someone ended up dead. In my mind, that's negligence. It would be like if I wired the electricity for my neighborhood pool and winded up electrocuting a bunch of swimmers because I'm not an electrician. Zimmerman deliberately went into that situation against the wishes of the police. He fucked up and killed an unarmed guy who wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman got involved.

I don't think it was murder. He was probably defending himself from a guy who thought he was defending himself. But is was gross incompetence on Zimmerman's part that resulted in a death.

I think it would be just and reasonable to find him guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Your line of reasoning is good up to the point that if the neighborhood expected the police to satisfy their needs, they wouldn't have implemented a neighborhood watch in the first place. The police always advise others to let them handle it. The problem is that there's always a conflict of interest between them being the best qualified and them just saying others should let them handle it because it's their job security. The police know very well that they are reactive while the neighborhood watch is proactive. The neighborhood knows that too. Zimmerman was a product of that disparity. To his shame he became over zealous in his proactive role; but, to say he's not an authority of any kind is a bit over the top:

[Gomer Pyle]CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST![/Gomer Pyle]

If poor judgment was a crime, he'd be guilty.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 04:43 AM   #102
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon View Post
I'm not a particularly religious man; but, at times like this I thank God that people like you and tw don't have children. They'd be no better off than Trayvon Martin.
Fuck you Sexobon, you arrogant piece of shit.


Done with this place.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 07:06 AM   #103
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
K. Been for a walk with carrotchops and calmed down a bit. I'm not 'done with this place' at all. That was an overreaction. Take it as an indication of real hurt.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 09:19 AM   #104
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Attack ... insult ... intimidate
When all else fails, make reference to "sheep"

Merc used these tactics, too.
They seem to be common among the CCL folk.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2013, 10:59 AM   #105
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon View Post
...I've said Zimmerman was the adult responsible for controlling that situation and he failed to live up to his responsibility. That Zimmerman killed Martin

--snip--

if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE.

--snip
sexobon, I think you're a smart man, you've lots of life experience. There are areas where our opinions are similar, other areas where they're farther apart, like most pairs of people. However, on this point, I'll say definitively that you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is.

I don't know why you'd suggest this, except that it's an extension of your argument that both sides share responsibility for what happened, but taken to the useless extreme of absurdity.

Your analogy of cars and drivers and training and the right of way doesn't justify your argument. If I drive through a green light and am hit from the side by someone running the red light, I bear *no* responsibility for the collision. That's what it means to have the right of way, that I have the right to be there, or move that way. Just as Martin had the right of way. It's a poor analogy providing no support for your point.

Martin's parents are entirely blameless in his death and suggesting otherwise is an uncharacteristically *stupid* statement by you.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.