So the short fat Latino dude ...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

...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.

[glatt]

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]

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.

[chrisinhouston]

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!

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.

You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to. You can't take the right of way in an intersection, any more than I can. One of us can yield the right of way to the other, one of us is (probably) entitled to the right of way according to the rules of the road, but if neither of us yields, there will be conflict.

Authority is like that, unless it is recognized by both parties, there is no authority. In a situation where the rules for authority are clear, say with a policeman and a civilian and the policeman is acting within his authority by the rules, it is only the acceptance by the civilian of the authority of the policeman that makes the authority real. When that authority is challenged, there can be conflict, possibly fatal results. The policeman might have been due the authority, but he'd be (could be) dead right. That's not authority.

But Zimmerman's role doesn't even rise to this level, there's no formal set of rules granting any kind of authority to him, certainly no authority greater than what Martin was entitled to. Unless you cite the law of the jungle or might makes right. We live in a society that has explicitly rejected those frames of reference though. In our civil society, all appeals to that kind of justification are attempted are rejected.

The only basis for Zimmerman's "authority" came from his confidence that he could shoot his way out of any situation he might find himself in. If you have other evidence of some other authority granted to him, I'd like to hear it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

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

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Everybody on **both** sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow

--snip.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

show me where I implied that please

To me, "both" implies just two.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Had the prosecution gone for a manslaughter charge they may have got a conviction, and that would probably have better reflected what actually happened.

Manslaughter was in fact one of the charges. The jury seemed to consider it closely, but still found him innocent.

[DanaC]

Ahh, I hadnt realised that.

One thing that puzzles me is that it was a jury of 6 people. Is that normal?

[DanaC]

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

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.

[Undertoad]

So I did. alrighty then

[DanaC]

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.

[Lamplighter]

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.