Zimmerman not guilty.

[HoreTore]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

I guess this is old news already, but no one has made a thread about it yet.

Zimmerman, who shot an unarmed kid, has been found not guilty due to draconian US laws. I can't build up any anger at stuff like this anymore, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief and mumble "when will these barbarians ever learn..."

Insanity. Period. Not the ruling, but the laws which allowed the ruling.

[Papewaio]

Lemurs disease most often strikes patients when the thread is camouflaged:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140826-This-Person-is-a-Member-of-the-US-House-of-Representatives/page14

[a completely inoffensive name]

You done goof'd horeTore.

[PanzerJaeger]

My fault. Maybe it is best for the thread title to be changed.

[Fragony]

Your media must be the same as ours Horetore, if you don't watch quality media you can see Zimmermans head bruised in the face and all bloody on the back of his head. Self-defence, yeah

[HoreTore]

Your media must be the same as ours Horetore, if you don't watch quality media you can see Zimmermans head bruised in the face and all bloody on the back of his head. Self-defence, yeah

I don't believe capital punishment is the appropriate response to a bruised head. I don't think you do either, considering you've done the same.

As for Lemur's disease.... If we include thread derails in it, every single thread on this forum suffers from Lemurs disease. I have always assumed that every thread above 10 pages contains every topic known to man.

[Fisherking]

He was not guilty under Florida law.

The FBI investigated charges of a racial motive in the incident and found none.

The early charges of racism were media manufactured and governmentally fostered. It sparked protests in the black community with the intervention of the usual suspects.

It is tragic that a young man lost his life and both could have avoided the outcome.

But the black community and the white liberal media are silent about the shocking number of deaths of young blacks by other blacks.

It was only noticed because it was a “Man bites Dog” kind of story.

The media is still covering the issue and still putting out misleading and false statements. They are suturing the pot hopping it will boil over.

Inventing racial issues or promoting division is what they are guilty of. That is always good for ratings.

[Fragony]

Yeah, it's a tragedy for all involved, no winners here.

[Fisherking]

Yeah, it's a tragedy for all involved, no winners here.

Oh but there are winners!

The Media and Race Baiters are getting a lot of coverage and add revenues. People are excited and outraged that Zimmerman was not drawn and quartered and dragged behind a buss.

Politicians have another chance to write reactionary laws and put people in jail or maybe even execute them.

Nothing good is coming from it but that doesn’t mean there are no winners.

[Fragony]

Heh the quality-media was kinda dissapointed here, they keep pointing out he is half white to the point of it looking desperate.

A cause a cause! My dignity for a cause!

[Fisherking]

Sure, and Obama is half white too. Is that grounds to assume that he is racist?

[Ronin]

don´t think this is necessarily about racism.
it's more about a man on a power trip and a dumb "stand your ground" law that amplified it.

[The Stranger]

Sure, and Obama is half white too. Is that grounds to assume that he is racist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

he is not white, sir.

(In all seriousness, two halves is almost always one thing, and not two things. Half black half white is black in europe and white in africa, not 2x half anywhere. It is sad, I can know.)

[Fragony]

(In all seriousness, two halves is almost always one thing, and not two things. Half black half white is black in europe and white in africa, not 2x half anywhere. It is sad, I can know.)

Not really true in the Netherlands, if you are of mixed race you are a 'halfbloed' (halfblood). To non-Dutchies, I know that sounds horrible but it isn't meant badly.

[The Stranger]

Not really true in the Netherlands, if you are of mixed race you are a 'halfbloed' (halfblood). To non-Dutchies, I know that sounds horrible but it isn't meant badly.

just as true in the netherlands, regardless of the word they use. But I dont want to derail this thread.

[Fisherking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

he is not white, sir.

(In all seriousness, two halves is almost always one thing, and not two things. Half black half white is black in europe and white in africa, not 2x half anywhere. It is sad, I can know.)

The same goes for Hispanic too. The half white is just a media hype.

I am classed as Native American though most of my ancestry is European and I have a German last name. That makes me a halfbreed or injun to whites and a white man to Indians. Want to talk about it?

[The Stranger]

The same goes for Hispanic too. The half white is just a media hype.

I am classed as Native American though most of my ancestry is European and I have a German last name. That makes me a halfbreed or injun to whites and a white man to Indians. Want to talk about it?

Not neccesarily, and not here. I just thought I should add a serious note to the joke about the one drop rule. because imo, its nothing but a joke.

[Ronin]

I think what happened is that the jury realized they couldn´t give him the death penalty.
so they gave it to him anyway by putting him back on the streets....it's kinda brilliant.

[HoreTore]

The same goes for Hispanic too. The half white is just a media hype.

I am classed as Native American though most of my ancestry is European and I have a German last name. That makes me a halfbreed or injun to whites and a white man to Indians. Want to talk about it?

Move to France, where it's illegal to classify citizens according to ethnicity ~;)

(and religion too I think, but I'm not sure about that)

[Fisherking]

I think what happened is that the jury realized they couldn´t give him the death penalty.
so they gave it to him anyway by putting him back on the streets....it's kinda brilliant.

I think Zimmerman was a want-a-be hero doing his neighborhood watch captain thing. He didn’t disregard the dispatchers instructions. He went back to his truck, which is where it should have ended. However Martin chose to double back and confront him.

Did Martin look suspicious? If he was walking through people’s lawns at night with a hood over his head, he did. He was a stranger on other peoples property. Sufficient to be arrested for trespassing.

Some where in that confrontation Zimmerman ended up on the ground with a broken nose and his head being pounded into the sidewalk. Was he seriously hurt? No. Did he have reason to believe he might be? Yes. Is that justification for the use of deadly force? Under Florida law, it is.

Was there a racial motive to the shooting? Not according to an FBI investigation into the matter.

Most of this is inflammatory and concocted from the media. There was a similar case recently also in Florida where the shooter was black and the dead one was white. The shooter went home.

Was it tragic that a young man lost his life that day? It was indeed. And it was also tragic that approximately 20 other young black men lost their lives that day and every other day since. But unlike Martin they didn’t make it into the news because their killers were also black.

It is not a gun problem. It is a violence problem and a culture problem and it was brought about, at least to a large degree by Government Policy.

But that brings no media outcry or rush to change. No calls of injustice or racism. And that is the larger tragedy.

[Greyblades]

If I may, what are you referring to when you say it is due to the government policy?

[Fisherking]

If I may, what are you referring to when you say it is due to the government policy?

The war on poverty. Welfare as practiced in the US.

Google destruction of the black family or the travesty of black education. I am sure you will find enough to understand what I mean.

In part, at least, it was well meant but ill considered. Other parts were far more cynically implemented for political gain. Even when you take away any political bias it is pretty damning. But neither side has rushed to fix it.

[Lemur]

Pretty strong correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs#African_American_Communities) between War on Drugs, mass incarceration of black men, and the national breakdown of the black family.

That's one angle. There's also a correlation between welfare and the breakdown of the black family (as Fisherking mentions—less direct evidence for this hypothesis (http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/03/black-news/the-black-family-is-worse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/), but it's not without merit, and it's a favorite trope of Libertarians and the Far Right (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/02/is-government-aid-helping-or-hurting-blacks/)).

So from the Law & Order crowd you have drug laws that imprison a disproportionate number of black men, with every negative side-effect that entails, and from the Care Bears you have a welfare system that creates disincentives for marriage and family bonding. Quite the fecal taco.

Best/easiest/cheapest thing we could do, as a nation, would be to wind down the expensive and counter-productive War on Drugs. Welfare has already been heavily modified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act) (without corresponding upticks in black employment and family outcomes, which implies welfare was not the central disruption that Libertarians hypothesize).

One thing I find troubling in this discussion:

Do the media sensationalize and attempt to portray the simplest possible conflict to sell airtime/ads? Yes.

Do black and liberal politicians attempt to sell racial conflict, regardless of merit? Yes.

But ... but. We do have a history of racial injustice in this country, and I get wary when I hear people implying that the only form of racism is black-on-white, and that the only injustice is the White Man's Burden (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_2/kipling.html) as he deals with the Troublesome Negro. Some posts in this thread have tiptoed dangerously close to that border.

I would not want to be a young black man in the American South for a large number of reasons. It's a crappy starting position. Yes, the only way to fix things is to fix them yourself, but to ignore the institutional disadvantages placed on black Americans is a bit much. You don't have to be a gutmensch pinko drum-circler to recognize that there are structures in place (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) that disproportionately impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males) black men and women.

[Fragony]

Well I don't mind being dangerously close to that. I won't cross that line but this doesn't seem to be what some some people want it to be (not here on the org)

[Fisherking]

Thanks for bringing up the other topics Lemur.

The law and order crowd has much to answer for too.

No one should escape all blame. Left, Right, or Center, politicians black and white and to an extent activist groups likewise.

The Unions of the 1960s were also a part of the problem but now 50 years gone by the level of unrest can still be brought to a fever pitch without people bothering to find out the facts.

A thousand men can be swayed by their prejudices faster and easier than one man can be persuaded by reason.
Friedrich Hayek

I like most others I assumed Zimmerman guilty from media reports, until I started looking into the matter and that was most of the way through the trial.

Crime is not a matter of black or white, it is most often a matter of poverty and lack of opportunity.

Most people today do not see everything in racial tones. Most have long ago given up such stereotypes.

There were no clear racial overtones to this case until they were manufactured by the press. Rather than back down from them, they seem to be perpetuating them.

The case should be over and needs to be over. People upset at the death of one person and its injustice need to be aware of a much larger problem. If that got real national attention perhaps something more could be done.

[Vuk]

I don't believe capital punishment is the appropriate response to a bruised head. I don't think you do either, considering you've done the same.



It had nothing to do with punishment. It sounds like Zimmerman shot Trayvon to stop Trayvon from killing him. Zimmerman was pleading with him to stop, Trayvon had 'won' the fight and could have walked away. Zimmerman was probably so dazed after getting his head beated into the pavement that he could not have pursued. What he was doing was not self-defense, it was beating a man to death out of anger. If Zimmerman had not shot him, Zimmerman probably would have ended up dead.
If there was a racial motive to the violence, it appears to be Trayvon who was the racist "creepy ass cracka", etc. He thought Zimmerman was white, and according to the witness, Racheal, it sounds like he assumed he was gay too.

[HoreTore]

Zimmerman was an armed volounteer neighborhood guard.

That's a recipe for murder. As we have seen.

[Vuk]

Zimmerman was an armed volounteer neighborhood guard.

That's a recipe for murder. As we have seen.

Except what happened wasn't murder. What led to the death was Zimmerman disobeying his instructions (which is nowhere near murder) and a drugged up Trayvon trying to kill him. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and is guilty of only stupidity, not murder. Trayvon was most likely an attempted murderer however.
There is nothing wrong with a volunteer neighborhood watch, and 99% of the time it is a big help and does not cause problems. Hell, trained police forces probably cause more problems than local neighborhood watches.
And BTW, following someone is not a crime punishable by being beat to death. And from recent revelations, it sounds like Trayvon thought he was gay and was disgusted by that fact, and possibly tried to kill him for racial and homophobic reasons.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, statistically you're in a much better position to invoke self-defense if you are not black. Breakdown below, broken out by "stand your ground" and non-syg states, black-on-black versus black-on-white and white-on-black.

https://i.imgur.com/FgAAcbM.png

Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/).

[Vuk]

For what it's worth, statistically you're in a much better position to invoke self-defense if you are not black. Breakdown below, broken out by "stand your ground" and non-syg states, black-on-black versus black-on-white and white-on-black.

https://i.imgur.com/FgAAcbM.png

Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/).

So what? We gotta judge Zimmerman by the facts of the case, not some statistic. That would be like posting a statistic showing that black people are much more likely to rape white women than white men black women on a thread dealing with a black guy being found innocent of raping a white woman.

I feel to see how it is relevant.

[Lemur]

I feel to see how it is relevant.
Statistics about the likely outcome of a self-defense plea in a case that hinges on ... a self-defense plea. Seems pretty straightforward.

In part, I am reacting against the suggestion that the racial angle was completely invented out of whole cloth by the Evil Media. The media messed up many times, and got a great deal wrong, but I don't think the (false) racial narrative would have taken hold if there were not some reality people were reacting to.

There's a solid history of all-white juries refusing to convict people who killed black men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-white_jury#Notable_cases). Is this case a result of that? Hell no.

There's irrefutable statistical evidence (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/) that a self-defense plea is much more likely to succeed if you are a white person killing a black person. Is that causal to the Zimmerman case? Hell no.

People grabbed this case and ran with it in some fundamentally wrong directions. Grant you that. But the notion that they were behaving in a vacuum, out of some imagined problem, is counter-factual.

[Fisherking]

@ Lemur

Ok, so I didn’t follow this case until the last minute. I saw all the bull on fb on one side or the other and got what the German media was reporting, which was recycled CNN more or less.

Where did the racial angle come from? At least prior to NBC’s creative editing job.

Was it Florida, gated community, neighborhood watch, the name Zimmerman or what?

[Lemur]

Meh, I think it was just a perfect storm race-wise, with elements that managed to twang just about every tension in American race relations.

The thing is, as everyone's at pains to point out, the more you learned the more the case clearly was NOT a perfect storm.

But right, the gated community, the volunteer who was initially reported as white, the unarmed black teen, the shooting, the initial refusal by the police and prosecutor to make a case (which set a lot of alarm bells ringing, given the history), etc.

In the end, it was just a mess. But at the outset, from the outside, it looked like a very bad replay of some very bad episodes of American history.

[Husar]

Except what happened wasn't murder. What led to the death was Zimmerman disobeying his instructions (which is nowhere near murder) and a drugged up Trayvon trying to kill him. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and is guilty of only stupidity, not murder. Trayvon was most likely an attempted murderer however.

Yes, but if someone asks me to rob a bank with him and I say no and give him a cookie that says "good luck" instead and he murders someone in the bank I'm guilty of murder by association in the US. Or if that's too removed from you, maybe I was just sitting in the car outside and didn't even have a gun or know that the murderer had one. I'm assumed guilty of murder because I was part of the action and helped him get there and in this light, saying that Zimmerman was just stupid seems a bit easy since his actions that were in violation of strict neighborhood watch rules directly lead to the death of a person. More so IMO, than driving an escape car.

My point of course is that the whole guilty by association thing is stupid and you should do away with it. The murderer is the one who pulled the trigger and not the one who stood by and shouted "No, don't do it!" but happened to wear a matching balaclava.

Oh and saying Trayvon was most likely an attempted murderer is pure speculation, many people get beaten up and not killed, you cannot know when he would've stopped because our hero stopped him prematurely and now private prisons will earn less. It certainly wasn't good for the economy man.

[Xiahou]

The facts of the case showed Martin to be misguided, and Zimmerman to be a murderer. The facts of the trial, on the other hand, showed the Florida legal system to be incapable of rendering a fair verdict in this case.Have you looked at any of the facts in this case? Convicting Zimmerman would have been anything but fair. You can believe Zimmerman acted with malice if you choose, but there is inadequate evidence to prove it anywhere other than in your mind.

[Xiahou]

There's irrefutable statistical evidence (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/) that a self-defense plea is much more likely to succeed if you are a white person killing a black person.You know, I was sincerely curious about this, so I started reading the link:
Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians. They’ve also been criticized by civil rights groups for encouraging violence and being racially biased.And then I stopped. If they can't be troubled to get the basic facts of the case right, I'm not going to trust them to present any objective evidence.

Stand Your Ground was not invoked by the defense.

[HoreTore]

Except what happened wasn't murder. What led to the death was Zimmerman disobeying his instructions (which is nowhere near murder)

See, this is where things get wrong.

A civilian should never be allowed police authority. A civilian should never be allowed to "issue instructions". And when such instructions are backed up with a gun, you get the obvious result.

If Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night, Trayvon wouldn't have attacked him, nor would he have been able to shoot. This murder happened because your society allows random people to walk around with guns "looking tough".

If Zimmerman observed strange behaviour, the obvious solution is to go home and call the cops. That's what he should have done, and in that case there wouldn't have been any beatings or deaths that night.

[Xiahou]

Except what happened wasn't murder. What led to the death was Zimmerman disobeying his instructions Sorry, I just saw this when HoreTore quoted you. But, there is no evidence to support this claim. Just one of the many misconceptions still out there... Read the call transcript yourself.

[Lemur]

I stopped. If they can't be troubled to get the basic facts of the case right, I'm not going to trust them to present any objective evidence.

Stand Your Ground was not invoked by the defense.
Which is totally true as a limited and misleading statement.

One of the reasons given (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/15/stateline-zimmerman-stand-your-ground/2517507/) for a lack of a case in the initial weeks after the shooting was the Stand Your Ground law, the judge instructed the jury to consider self-defense in the explicit terms laid out in the Stand Your Ground law (http://news.yahoo.com/jury-instructions-center-zimmerman-verdict-210738525.html), and the jury considered Stand Your Ground in deliberations (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html).

So it's a trial that hinges on self-defense, which was substantially altered by the Stand Your Ground law ... but because the defense attorney never said the words "Stand Your Ground," you're asserting that the law had nothing to do with this case. (Or rather, you're making the technically true but highly misleading statement that "Stand Your Ground was never invoked by the defense," which is a slippery bit of semantics if I ever saw one. Oh, the judge included it in the jury instructions? I was talking about the defense. Oh, the police mentioned it? I was talking about the defense. Oh, the jury considered it as part of the verdict? I was talking about the defense. Oh, the defense's entire case rested on the Stand Your Ground definition of self-defense? Well they never invoked it, whatever "invoked" means in this context.)

Gotcha.

From a juror's interview:


COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow.

JUROR: Right. That was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way — no other place to go.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

[Xiahou]

I had a longer post under way... but it's late and I'm going to bed. I'll let someone else make my argument (http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi) for me. They probably explain it better than I could anyhow..

In short, the prosecution said it wasn't about Stand Your Ground. The defense didn't claim SYG as defense. The chief of police said it was clear self-defense and not SYG. And if the law hadn't been on the books it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial.

[Husar]

See, this is where things get wrong.

A civilian should never be allowed police authority. A civilian should never be allowed to "issue instructions". And when such instructions are backed up with a gun, you get the obvious result.

If Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night, Trayvon wouldn't have attacked him, nor would he have been able to shoot. This murder happened because your society allows random people to walk around with guns "looking tough".

If Zimmerman observed strange behaviour, the obvious solution is to go home and call the cops. That's what he should have done, and in that case there wouldn't have been any beatings or deaths that night.

Wow, what a nanny state you dream of.

In America normal people are treated as responsible adults who are able to make the right decisions without the state telling them what to do. Responsible adults are certainly more than capable of handling a gun and acting responsible in keeping their neighborhood clean. The police won't be there when something happens, they always come later to pick up the bodies, takes a responsible adult to shoot the punks and defend the grandmothers.

If you want to suck at the government's teet, treat murderers as victims and hurt the prison economy then America is not the country for you because it is populated with responsible, self-respecting and capable adult citizens who value their freedoms, liberties and personal responsibility more than anything else and wouldn't give any of that up to gain a nanny state in return!

[HoreTore]

Wow, what a nanny state you dream of.

Well....

I don't want to arm the police either, so I'm guessing I want more of a "nanny society" than a "nanny state"...

[Lemur]

I'll let someone else make my argument (http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi) for me.
Again, if you take a very narrow read on events, this is literally true. But your talking point gets all flummoxed and angry when it runs up against things like Zimmerman's initial talk of Stand your Ground, and the fact that the jury explicitly considered the law when exonerating Zimmerman. Also, as per your linked article, you have to dismiss the judge's jury instructions to make your talking point work.

At the very least, you might not want to dismiss any and all people who reference Stand Your Ground in relation to this case; I think it's blindingly obvious that there's more than one legitimate read on the subject. Just because the bloggers at Reason happen to agree with you and Sean Hannity is no cause to be so dismissive of, say, the statistical article I linked earlier.

[Xiahou]

At the very least, you might not want to dismiss any and all people who reference Stand Your Ground in relation to this case; I think it's blindingly obvious that there's more than one legitimate read on the subject. Just because the bloggers at Reason happen to agree with you and Sean Hannity is no cause to be so dismissive of, say, the statistical article I linked earlier.To be honest, I went back and read the whole article later. It was crap for reasons beyond SYG. For whatever reasons, blacks commit homicide at a much greater rate than whites. In cases where the race of the perpetrator is identified, slightly over 50% of the perpetrators are black. Yet only around 13% of our population is black. Don't you think it reasonable that as the homicide rate increases across a population, that the rate of justifiable (self-defense) homicides would not scale at the same level? Nowhere did I see that "study's" author address this or any other confounding factors. Indeed, I'd call it as much a "study" as when you or I go on Google and pull data from the FBI's website. I guess the difference is that he made a bar graph. :shrug:

[Fragony]

Wow, what a nanny state you dream of.

In America normal people are treated as responsible adults who are able to make the right decisions without the state telling them what to do. Responsible adults are certainly more than capable of handling a gun and acting responsible in keeping their neighborhood clean. The police won't be there when something happens, they always come later to pick up the bodies, takes a responsible adult to shoot the punks and defend the grandmothers.

If you want to suck at the government's teet, treat murderers as victims and hurt the prison economy then America is not the country for you because it is populated with responsible, self-respecting and capable adult citizens who value their freedoms, liberties and personal responsibility more than anything else and wouldn't give any of that up to gain a nanny state in return!

Yes I do, where are we going to buy a farm

X

[Lemur]

Indeed, I'd call it as much a "study" as when you or I go on Google and pull data from the FBI's website. I guess the difference is that he made a bar graph.
And if you had back-tracked from the article, you would have found the earlier source here (http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/03/stand-ground-laws-miscarriages-justice/).

I'm glad you've moved from dismissing the article because it does not adhere to your particular interpretation of SYG law and its relevance to the Zimmerman case on to dismissing the article because it doesn't address the things you find interesting.

One of the discussion-worthy things about the case is the use of self-defense in a low-evidence situation. (Despite many proclamations people have made about what did and did not happen, the truth of the matter is that most of what happened with Martin and Zimmerman is unproveable.) Stand Your Ground was clearly a factor on everyone's—most importantly the jury's (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html)—mind. Whether or not a duty to retreat was a factor depends entirely on how the fight between Martin and Zimmerman was initiated, and nobody can state with any certainty how that played out.

So your assertion that SYG is irrelevant depends entirely on accepting Zimemrman's version of events. Which may or may not be 100% accurate.

[The Lurker Below]

It is not easy to tell if this forums "Zimmerman guilty" people are so because they disagree with the USA protection of gun rights and self defense law, or because they think Zimmerman a racist, and therefore representative of our reprehensibly racist society. Outside of these forums however, there is no doubt that the Zimmerman guilty crowd are such because of the latter. That group REFUSES to look at the facts when completely shared, they want ONLY to see what the media fed them in the few days after the event. The media sold a story that would sell. Racism is fantastic print, gun control not so much.

If the media wanted a story about gun control and self defense rights, they'd have made a big deal about the Christopher Cervini - Roderick Scott case several years ago. Very similar circumstances, races reversed. That does not do well for the purposes of race baiters.

Long story short - if you're hanging Zimmerman for being a racist, you can kiss 6 white female jurists ass! hahahahaha bish.

[Fisherking]

We sure can do without further speculation. That is how it all started.

I think it played out the only way it could have with a trial.

If the state has sent it to a grand jury and had they found no grounds to prosecute there would have still been a lot of upset people. I am not sure if they could have gone a head with a trial if the grand jury has said found insufficient evidence.

Many are upset with the prosecution but the Governor has said he would find someone to do it, and he did.

From the facts of the case it would never have gone so far had the media not over reacted and checked their facts. And NBCs attempt to color the man as a racist proved very damaging. That and the use of the photos of Zimmerman and Martin.

[Lemur]

Fisherking, yeah, that's about the size of it. I would only add that police and prosecutors refusing to bring a case against someone who shot an unarmed black teen had some very unfortunate historical resonance.

So ... people were reacting to something real, even if it was misapplied.

But beyond that, yeah.

[Fisherking]

A reasonable reason to have a second look, in deed.

[Xiahou]

Fisherking's post brings me back to something Lemur said earlier...

In part, I am reacting against the suggestion that the racial angle was completely invented out of whole cloth by the Evil Media. The media messed up many times, and got a great deal wrong, but I don't think the (false) racial narrative would have taken hold if there were not some reality people were reacting to.The racial angle wasn't invented by the media, it was exploited by the media. In their rush for ratings, they ignored, discounted, or flat out altered the facts of the story.

They knew this was an extremely sensitive subject matter. And instead of treating it with sensitivity, they treated it with sensationalism.

[Lemur]

That's a fair take. Like I said, I was pushing back against the notion that the racial sensitivities were fabricated. Which was the implication of a few posts.

The distinction between "invented" and "exploited" is an important one.

As I said at the end of the post you quote:


People grabbed this case and ran with it in some fundamentally wrong directions. Grant you that. But the notion that they were behaving in a vacuum, out of some imagined problem, is counter-factual.

[Fisherking]

What the media did was take raw facts and made gross assumptions based on the report. They then spun it in the most unfavorable light without bothering to do even cursory investigation.

Some even misrepresented the facts in such a was as prove their view was the correct one and the only conclusion a sensible person could reach.

They did real damage, not only to the individual, but also the state of race relations in the nation and around the world.

Even during and after the trial they continued to misrepresent the true nature of the facts and to obscure what was said or done. More so by pundits than the actual news but no less damaging.

If they want to pursue a case more likely to demonstrate racial bias then they should look into the verdict of Trevor Dooley and his manslaughter conviction.

The case has been touted by the right as to the injustice of the Zimmerman case but Dooley was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 years.

The media in his case cited the triviality of the argument and the fact that minors, including the 8 year old daughter of the dead man, were present. Dooley initially used the stand your ground law as defense, to have the case dismissed. That was denied. He then used self defense in his case, how ever the media made issue with his seeming lack of remorse.

During the altercation Dooley showed his gun in his waist band but turned to leave. At which point James spun him around, wrestled him to the ground and was choking him. Dooley said he could not breath, he prodded James in the leg several times with the gun before he fired, killing him.

If these facts are true, then how did a Tampa Jury find to convict? Surely the law is clear enough that Dooley should also be a free man.

[Xiahou]

Even during and after the trial they continued to misrepresent the true nature of the facts and to obscure what was said or done. More so by pundits than the actual news but no less damaging.I think we're seeing a bizarre phenomenon in "new reporting" now. News personalities get to say their usual stupid stuff, but then it's reported on by the supposed straight news segments thereby we have networks generating their own "news".


If they want to pursue a case more likely to demonstrate racial bias then they should look into the verdict of Trevor Dooley and his manslaughter conviction.

The case has been touted by the right as to the injustice of the Zimmerman case but Dooley was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 years.

The media in his case cited the triviality of the argument and the fact that minors, including the 8 year old daughter of the dead man, were present. Dooley initially used the stand your ground law as defense, to have the case dismissed. That was denied. He then used self defense in his case, how ever the media made issue with his seeming lack of remorse.

During the altercation Dooley showed his gun in his waist band but turned to leave. At which point James spun him around, wrestled him to the ground and was choking him. Dooley said he could not breath, he prodded James in the leg several times with the gun before he fired, killing him.

If these facts are true, then how did a Tampa Jury find to convict? Surely the law is clear enough that Dooley should also be a free man.There's some big differences with the Dooley case (http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/282747/8/Teen-testifies-in-skateboarder-trial-Its-my-fault)....

The most important being that there were multiple witnesses to the confrontation- according to whom, it was determined that Dooley initiated the confrontation.

He came into the park screaming at a skateboarding kid, telling him to get off the basketball court. James, who was there with his daughter shooting hoops, told Dooley there was no signage prohibiting skateboards. Dooley responded by yelling "Fuck you!" and brandished his gun. James asked him why he was carrying a weapon and why he would swear in front of children. Then the altercation became physical. A witness stated at one point James was trying to pin Dooley on the ground, holding his arms down. During the struggle, Dooley shot and killed James.

I'm not aware of "Stand Your Ground" laws allowing you to assault someone and then kill them in "self-defense". A manslaughter conviction sounds completely appropriate here. There would have been far better grounds for a second-degree murder charge than there was in the Zimmerman case....

[Fisherking]

I saw the part where when asked who hit who, James’ daughter said my daddy…

I am sure there were more things considered to get that verdict, but were they pertinent to the case?

edit: I am not saying that Dooley was a good guy. He may have started the argument, but he was attacked when walking away, knocked to the ground and choked.

That is where the self defense comes in!

[Xiahou]

I saw the part where when asked who hit who, James’ daughter said my daddy…

I am sure there were more things considered to get that verdict, but were they pertinent to the case?

edit: I am not saying that Dooley was a good guy. He may have started the argument, but he was attacked when walking away, knocked to the ground and choked.

That is where the self defense comes in!
From my link:

The teen told jurors that he did not see James get violent, only that the veteran was on top of Dooley at one point, holding his hands down. "He did not choke him," said Arthur.

[Fragony]

lol. Massive protests all over America internet says. It must be hard to be a black in America. You want to be discriminated but aren't, what now?

[The Lurker Below]

“Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” said the president on Friday in his first on-camera response to the verdict.

Groovy. Had that been the case he sure as hell wouldn't have made it in politics. The first rule of politics must be use hyperbole.


The NBA Hall of Famer continued: "The main thing I feel bad for, [is that the trial] gives every white person and black person who are racist a platform to vent."

"I don't like when race gets out in the media because...I don't think the media has clean hands," Barkley said.


Barkley is a straight shooter (even though they were easy shots because he spent most of his time trolling the paint). Bottom line is, instead of Obama guiding the media, he allowed them to guide him on this issue. As inept as our politicians may be, their a damn sight better leadership than our media is.

[Fisherking]

I have some difficulty treating his speech with anything short of skepticism. Obama grew up in a privileged enviornment, mostly in Hawaii. As most profiling relies on dress as much as color, I just don’t buy it.

Obama accepted an offer to work as a community organizer in Chicago's largely poor and black South Side. As biographer David Mendell notes in his 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power, the job gave Obama "his first deep immersion into the African American community he had longed to both understand and belong to."

Which way was it? It is rather hard to be both.

[Strike For The South]

I have some difficulty treating his speech with anything short of skepticism. Obama grew up in a privileged enviornment, mostly in Hawaii. As most profiling relies on dress as much as color, I just don’t buy it.

Obama accepted an offer to work as a community organizer in Chicago's largely poor and black South Side. As biographer David Mendell notes in his 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power, the job gave Obama "his first deep immersion into the African American community he had longed to both understand and belong to."

Which way was it? It is rather hard to be both.

Ok, can we give the hoodie a rest? It was raining outside, a hoodie is perfectly acceptable outerwear.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When I wear my uni's hoodie, people actually think I am less threatening.

[Fisherking]

Ok, can we give the hoodie a rest? It was raining outside, a hoodie is perfectly acceptable outerwear.

Who said anything about hoodies? I was talking about Obama.

If Obama ever did ware a hoodie, would you think the guy with Armani slacks and a hoodie with a designer label was as threatening as the guy with a hoodie and pants hanging to his knees?

[Fragony]

Ok, can we give the hoodie a rest? It was raining outside, a hoodie is perfectly acceptable outerwear.

Not here, if you wear one if you want to take the bus you will have to wait for the next one, shopkeepers won't help you

[Ironside]

I have some difficulty treating his speech with anything short of skepticism. Obama grew up in a privileged enviornment, mostly in Hawaii. As most profiling relies on dress as much as color, I just don’t buy it.

Obama accepted an offer to work as a community organizer in Chicago's largely poor and black South Side. As biographer David Mendell notes in his 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power, the job gave Obama "his first deep immersion into the African American community he had longed to both understand and belong to."

Which way was it? It is rather hard to be both.

He's admitted to drug use (alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine) about 35 years ago and his group of friends used to describe themselves as a gang. So previledged backround and hyperbole sure, but he wasn't exactly the saint of his class at that age.

[Fragony]

Who is, I wouldn't pay too much attention to that anyway as he is a bigger idiot right now for going along with race-baiters. No facts matter anymore, blacks got their pittitude and get to howl and he served the gutmensch a cause on a silver plate

[Fisherking]

He's admitted to drug use (alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine) about 35 years ago and his group of friends used to describe themselves as a gang. So previledged backround and hyperbole sure, but he wasn't exactly the saint of his class at that age.

That all sounds like hyperbole. In the 1970s cocaine was the drug of choice of the privileged. His gang likely did the drugs and alcohol they pilfered from their parents.

I am less impressed than ever.
:laugh4:

[Lemur]

he is a bigger idiot right now for going along with race-baiters.
I would be interested to see if there were any way Obama could address race without getting dinged for race-baiting by the Fox/Drudge/NewsMax crowd.

From what I've seen of the transcripts (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57594598/transcript-obamas-remarks-on-race-trayvon-martin/?pageNum=3), I'm missing the whole LET'S HATE ON WHITEY thing that you all seem to be hearing. Sample:

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

[Fragony]

What does it matter, Obama shouldn't have get himself involved in a non-issue, and now it's an issue.

[Lemur]

What does it matter, Obama shouldn't have get himself involved in a non-issue, and now it's an issue.
So by saying anything, Obama is (as my wingnut friends on Facebook are calling him) the race-baiter-in-chief.

Gotcha. Thanks for playing.

https://i.imgur.com/qbOQTx4.gif

[rvg]

So by saying anything, Obama is (as my wingnut friends on Facebook are calling him) the race-baiter-in-chief.

Pretty much. Moreso since his comments were downright retarded.

[Lemur]

Pretty much. Moreso since his comments were downright retarded.
Okay, gotcha, for the first black president to have an I-feel-your-pain moment with the black community is evil and retarded. And by saying anything at all he's a race-baiter.

It's a good thing that only other people have identity politics. Since we're white, we are immune! And the only racism left in America is Al Sharpton!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

https://i.imgur.com/vQLSF2Q.gif

[rvg]

Okay, gotcha, for the first black president to have an I-feel-your-pain moment with the black community is evil and retarded. And by saying anything at all he's a race-baiter.
He sure comes across like one. Now, I understand that he's aiming at guns rather than race, however it's not about what he means, it's about how it looks. Had he said "It could have been anybody", he would have shifted this into an anti-gun direction, which I think is what his aim was. The way he did it looked like pure race baiting. As a president he should be above that kind of stuff.

[Greyblades]

Lemur, please you are unfairly lumping us all together with these people, there are plenty of good, honest, non-assholish white people and to insinuate we are all like that is quite frankly offensive.

:P

[Fragony]

So by saying anything, Obama is (as my wingnut friends on Facebook are calling him) the race-baiter-in-chief.

Gotcha. Thanks for playing.

https://i.imgur.com/qbOQTx4.gif

Why encourage pittitude. Leave it to the court that is why you have them. Damage control done wrong, it now looks like he sided with the black community, over a crackhead piece of shit who is actually very likely to have been the burglar scouting the area they were looking for as they found loot in his locker at school and they found pictures of jewelry on his bed and automatic firearms as well. You must be reading quality-media as even I know that and I live on the other side of the ocean.

[Lemur]

[Obama] sided with the black community, over a crackhead piece of **** who is actually very likely to have been the burglar scouting the area
But the President is the one who's race-baiting. Gotcha.

Hard to argue with such a wealth of linked and documented evidence, not to mention your thoughtful analysis of the case.

[rvg]

But the President is the one who's race-baiting. Gotcha.

Of course it's the president. The president should learn when to interject himself into controversy and when to stay out of it. He should have stayed out of this one.

[Fragony]

But the President is the one who's race-baiting. Gotcha.

Hard to argue with such a wealth of linked and documented evidence, not to mention your thoughtful analysis of the case.

He encouraged it. Courts should be independent and he gave race-baiters a free pass by speaking out on it.

^- rvg says it better

Anyhow, the juwels they found in deadboy's locker can probably be traced back exactly to where they came from but we will never know for reasons that are obvious for anyone who doesn't read quality-newspapers

[Lemur]

rvg says it better
Nah, I'd say you are both expressing yourselves just fine.

[Fragony]

Nah, I'd say you are both expressing yourselves just fine.

It isn't what some people want it to be, sorry for that reality sucks sometimes. Maybe you should be apoligising for giving blacks equal rights for the law instead, who to blame now if you just have to blame someone for being a mess.

[Xiahou]

Zimmerman helps rescue a family from a SUV wreck. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432)
Unable to square this with their mental image of Zimmerman as the embodiment of evil, Zimmerman haters are claiming it was staged.... :no:

[Lemur]

Good for Zimmerman. I hope it's exactly what it looks like.

Whenever someone brings up the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about how "there are no second acts in American lives," I want to get slap-happy.

[Fragony]

Zimmerman helps rescue a family from a SUV wreck. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432)
Unable to square this with their mental image of Zimmerman as the embodiment of evil, Zimmerman haters are claiming it was staged.... :no:

Must have staged this as well http://www.google.nl/search?q=zimmerman+wounded&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.ZWU,pv.xjs.s.en_US.c75bKy5EQ0A.O&biw=1263&bih=774&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=8YrtUfiVEcHYPPDfgNgN#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=G8Lh7moVySdYHM%3A%3BkvLDN6I4rNZeKM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Flh6.googleusercontent.com%252F-QBUKP-VsZiA%252FUePnJBK-LFI%252FAAAAAAAAJHM%252FbqqW35qqU3k%252Fs800%252Fzimmerman%252520wounded.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fww w.speroforum.com%252Fa%252FPNOKWMQSPP46%252F74178-Trayvon-Martin-is-no-hero-of-civil-rights%3B800%3B587

That's ouch. An ad hominum like that really really bleeds. Can even be fatal. That looks like a cracked skull to me really. People who read quality-newspapers can't have seen this, but this was after the event

[Strike For The South]

I have some difficulty treating his speech with anything short of skepticism. Obama grew up in a privileged enviornment, mostly in Hawaii. As most profiling relies on dress as much as color, I just don’t buy it.

Obama accepted an offer to work as a community organizer in Chicago's largely poor and black South Side. As biographer David Mendell notes in his 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power, the job gave Obama "his first deep immersion into the African American community he had longed to both understand and belong to."

Which way was it? It is rather hard to be both.


Who said anything about hoodies? I was talking about Obama.

If Obama ever did ware a hoodie, would you think the guy with Armani slacks and a hoodie with a designer label was as threatening as the guy with a hoodie and pants hanging to his knees?

Clearly Obama could produce a son that looks like Trayvon. And that son may wear a hoodie, hell Obama may have even worn one a some point because it's a perfectly acceptable form of clothing

In other news, St.Zimmerman apparently saved 10 white babies from a burning car.

[Ironside]

That all sounds like hyperbole. In the 1970s cocaine was the drug of choice of the privileged. His gang likely did the drugs and alcohol they pilfered from their parents.

I am less impressed than ever.
:laugh4:

Sure, but my point was that a high young Obama doing something to earn the suspicion of a overzealous neighbourhood watch member (see below on that narrative not facts are the driving matter) that with some escalation ends up with Obama dead, is a very improbable scenario, but doesn't require some outright crazyness to happen. Compare to say Mitt Romney (afaik) or someone else with a very spotless growing up record.


What does it matter, Obama shouldn't have get himself involved in a non-issue, and now it's an issue.

They've got national protests and everything. It was an issue already.

It's not the facts that he has to react to, it's the narrative. He could've chosen to officially reject the narrative, but that's still a reaction to the narrative, not the facts. No time to fully check atm, but afaik he choosed troubled youth did something stupid and ended up dead for it as he narrative for his speach.

That media can control the narrative is quite nasty and a fact that's hard to avoid.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can't Flim-Flam the Zim Zam.

[Husar]

Zimmerman helps rescue a family from a SUV wreck. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432)
Unable to square this with their mental image of Zimmerman as the embodiment of evil, Zimmerman haters are claiming it was staged.... :no:

Of course he did, they were white rednecks driving an SUV. And it conveniently happened close to his known location, shortly after his trial and noone got injured.

I BET HE HELPED TURN THE TRUCK ON ITS BACK, TOO!!!111

[naut]

I BET HE HELPED TURN THE TRUCK ON ITS BACK, TOO!!!111
I bet he shot out the front tyres; black and under a hood. Yep, that's probably it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would be interested to see if there were any way Obama could address race without getting dinged for race-baiting by the Fox/Drudge/NewsMax crowd.

From what I've seen of the transcripts (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57594598/transcript-obamas-remarks-on-race-trayvon-martin/?pageNum=3), I'm missing the whole LET'S HATE ON WHITEY thing that you all seem to be hearing. Sample:

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Sounds like CinC is saying that if Martin had a gun, he should have shot Zimmerman rather than punching him, according to Florida Law.

Given that Obama is, irrc, a Harvard educated Lawyer, I think he's allowed an opinion on that.

I also think he's correct - given that a Texan once shot a Scot for urinating on his lawn and nothing happened.

Edit: rvg is Assyrian - so he's less white than Zimmerman, sorry Lemur.

[Xiahou]

Sounds like CinC is saying that if Martin had a gun, he should have shot Zimmerman rather than punching him, according to Florida Law.If Zimmerman hadn't been beaten bloody, claiming self-defense would have been a lot more challenging.
If Martin shot Zimmerman just for following him, without a scratch on him... he'd likely go to prison.

It's a stupid and unhelpful comment from the president.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If Zimmerman hadn't been beaten bloody, claiming self-defense would have been a lot more challenging.
If Martin shot Zimmerman just for following him, without a scratch on him... he'd likely go to prison.

It's a stupid and unhelpful comment from the president.

It was dark, Zimmerman was following a young man out to buy skittles. He was armed - Florida allows concealed carry, so if Martin had been armed and he had been approached by Zimmerman he would have been justified shooting Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him.

As it happened Martin wasn't armed, so he did the same but with his fists, and because he didn't have a gun he died. If he had been armed, Zimmerman would be dead.

Zimmerman was beaten, but not horribly, mostly that was unfortunate because his head was right by the curb.

The fact is - there's no Western country where Zimmerman would not have gone to gaol, except the US.

[Xiahou]

I don't understand what you're saying....
Are you trying to claim that since Florida has CCW licenses, that Martin, or anyone, could have assumed Zimmerman was not only armed, but presented an imminent threat of great harm/death and preemptively shot him even if Zimmerman had not threatened him. Then you further think that a jury would buy that and let him off?

If so- that's a load of rubbish.
If that's not what you're saying, please explain yourself better- because I don't see what you're getting at.

Please remember. Assault is a criminal act. Following someone around outside is not.

[Papewaio]

The kid could have shot Zimmerman and his defence would have been that he thought he was being stalked and about to be mugged/raped/murdered.

Did the kid die instantly or was he defending himself from a stalker who drew a firearm?

[Xiahou]

The kid could have shot Zimmerman and his defence would have been that he thought he was being stalked and about to be mugged/raped/murdered.And would a jury have thought that a reasonable assumption? Not likely. Martin would not have had a scratch on him, and the man he shot would have turned out to be the head of the neighborhood watch.

It was a stupid thing for Obama to say. And even more stupid considering he was a lawyer.... Then again, most of our politicians are lawyers and stupid- so I'll give him a pass on that part....


Did the kid die instantly or was he defending himself from a stalker who drew a firearm?Are you talking hypothetically here??

[Strike For The South]

I also think we are forgetting the fact that the defense claimed Martin doubled back.

If you want the law to change, elect a representative to enact that change.

Or you could forget about your representative until the red ticker on CNN tells you something is popping off.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand what you're saying....
Are you trying to claim that since Florida has CCW licenses, that Martin, or anyone, could have assumed Zimmerman was not only armed, but presented an imminent threat of great harm/death and preemptively shot him even if Zimmerman had not threatened him. Then you further think that a jury would buy that and let him off?

If so- that's a load of rubbish.
If that's not what you're saying, please explain yourself better- because I don't see what you're getting at.

Please remember. Assault is a criminal act. Following someone around outside is not.

No - that's pretty much it.

Zimmerman looks like a fairly solid guy - it's dark - he's following me - this isn't a great neighborhood - people get attacked - this is Florida, so he could be armed, hell I'm armed.

So I'll shoot him before he shoots me - that's actually what I'd do in that situation - in a country where people carry concealed weapons and are allowed to shoot other people without even being arrested, I'd be pretty terrified if someone was following me.

The situation only tilts further in Martin's favour if he says he doubled back to remonstrate with Zimmerman and then Zimmerman became aggressive (which seems likely given that Martin felt the need to knock him down).

When the cops turn up I can say, "I was afraid he had a weapon", the cops search the body and low and behold he has a nasty little hold-out pistol without a safety catch.

How is that any less credible than Zimmerman's story?

After all - doesn't Zimmerman's defense rest of him being afraid for his life, against an unarmed man much lighter than him? Surely the same defense MUST be applicable before weapons are drawn, because otherwise it's functionally useless in a situation where both parties are armed.

Or we come back to Obama being right - Stand Your Ground is a charter for armed Civilians to shoot and kill unarmed Civilians if they throw a punch.

[rvg]

Or we come back to Obama being right - Stand Your Ground is a charter for armed Civilians to shoot and kill unarmed Civilians if they throw a punch.

Punch a wrong guy and you might end up dead. Moral of the story: don't punch people.

[Whacker]

No - that's pretty much it.

Zimmerman looks like a fairly solid guy - it's dark - he's following me - this isn't a great neighborhood - people get attacked - this is Florida, so he could be armed, hell I'm armed.

So I'll shoot him before he shoots me - that's actually what I'd do in that situation - in a country where people carry concealed weapons and are allowed to shoot other people without even being arrested, I'd be pretty terrified if someone was following me.

The situation only tilts further in Martin's favour if he says he doubled back to remonstrate with Zimmerman and then Zimmerman became aggressive (which seems likely given that Martin felt the need to knock him down).

When the cops turn up I can say, "I was afraid he had a weapon", the cops search the body and low and behold he has a nasty little hold-out pistol without a safety catch.

How is that any less credible than Zimmerman's story?

After all - doesn't Zimmerman's defense rest of him being afraid for his life, against an unarmed man much lighter than him? Surely the same defense MUST be applicable before weapons are drawn, because otherwise it's functionally useless in a situation where both parties are armed.

Or we come back to Obama being right - Stand Your Ground is a charter for armed Civilians to shoot and kill unarmed Civilians if they throw a punch.

Not sure if trolling or authentic...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Punch a wrong guy and you might end up dead. Moral of the story: don't punch people.

And if Martin would have had a gun?

Would the moral then be, "don't follow people in the dark"?

It's an awesome​ way to order your society - fear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not sure if trolling or authentic...

If you live in a country like the UK America is pretty terrifying.

No healthcare and pretty much anybody could be carrying a gun - and there's a chance that if you raise your voice - someone will shoot you. Then, when you get shot and killed, nobody even gets arrested.

Sure, I'd have shot Zimmerman, he looks either dopey or shifty in all the photos, it's dark, bulky jacket, if I saw the harness I'd assume that guy was going to kill me.

That's a cultural thing though - in the UK we only use guns to kill people. So if you see someone carrying one and he's not a cop, he's probably going to kill you.

Given that Zimmerman used his gun to kill Martin, I feel somewhat justified in this view of firearms.

[rvg]

And if Martin would have had a gun?

Would the moral then be, "don't follow people in the dark"?

It's an awesome​ way to order your society - fear.

Fear is something that is almost universally understood. Except by stupid people. Those get weeded out by the process. Simple, efficient, elegant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am going to ask everyone nicely. As I have said, this type of trial is only toxic for the public discourse. Since all has been said regarding the verdict this seems to now degenerate into another gun control argument with useless hypothetical's made about the Zimmerman/Martin interaction. Please just let this thing drop.

[Devastatin Dave]

The trick is to simply cut the meat into smaller pieces and then cook it until it's done, not black (which is what I'd call overcooked) but not raw anymore either. The smaller the pieces, the easier to do that. Noone forces you to to cook an entire animal in one piece, you cut or bite pieces off to eat it anyway.

I beat my meat.

Good to see the same folks here battling it out in the same fashion as years past...

Martin jumped on the wrong "crazy ass cracker" and got himself killed before one of Obama's other "sons" got a chance to bust a cap in him. Its "Obama" culture, no point in trying to understand it. When "the Man" is now the Prezzy of the United States, the whole race baiting loses it flavor. St. Skittles and his borderline retarded girlfriend is the face of Obama-nation and is our future. There is not a god damn thing we can do to change our future.
Obama was wrong in one aspect, he had said that Trayvon could have been him at that age. Nope, aside from the drug use, Obama's WHITE grandparents kept him away from "black" culture. If Obama had lived in South Side Chicago, East St Louis, Detroit, or some other tribal sh!t hole in this rotting country, he would have been pulling throat tricks for crack and probably wouldn't have made it to adulthood. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. :laugh4:

Have a good one everybody. Anthony Weiner, How long is your dong?

[Fragony]

Hello gorgeous!

[rvg]

I beat my meat...

Welcome back!!!

[Husar]

Sure, I'd have shot Zimmerman, he looks either dopey or shifty in all the photos, it's dark, bulky jacket, if I saw the harness I'd assume that guy was going to kill me.

You mean he looks like a paedophile and Martin probably punched him back after he touched him somewhere inappropriate. The problem is that Zimmerman can simply omit that and get away with it now that he killed the only person who could tell us that.
I mean looks like a paedophile, quacks like a paedophile, walks like a paedophile and follows a young boy around at night, the case is pretty much set for me.

It's just scary how easy it was for him to silence the only victim and then get away with his sexual assault.

[rvg]

It's just scary how easy it was for him to silence the only victim and then get away with his sexual assault.

Yeah, he even called a pedophile 911 operator to invite a few pedophile cops along for the party.

[Husar]

Yeah, he even called a pedophile 911 operator to invite a few pedophile cops along for the party.

Yeah, sometimes these things permeate several layers of society.

[Strike For The South]

I beat my meat.

Good to see the same folks here battling it out in the same fashion as years past...

Martin jumped on the wrong "crazy ass cracker" and got himself killed before one of Obama's other "sons" got a chance to bust a cap in him. Its "Obama" culture, no point in trying to understand it. When "the Man" is now the Prezzy of the United States, the whole race baiting loses it flavor. St. Skittles and his borderline retarded girlfriend is the face of Obama-nation and is our future. There is not a god damn thing we can do to change our future.
Obama was wrong in one aspect, he had said that Trayvon could have been him at that age. Nope, aside from the drug use, Obama's WHITE grandparents kept him away from "black" culture. If Obama had lived in South Side Chicago, East St Louis, Detroit, or some other tribal sh!t hole in this rotting country, he would have been pulling throat tricks for crack and probably wouldn't have made it to adulthood. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. :laugh4:

Have a good one everybody. Anthony Weiner, How long is your dong?

Obama said he could've had a son who looked like Martin.

Let's not overplay the hand, hillbily

[Devastatin Dave]

Obama said he could've had a son who looked like Martin.

Let's not overplay the hand, hillbily

No, in the latest Obama interference in this case, Obama said that Trayvon could have been him many years ago... you cow pie eating, long horn humpin', cowboy... Missed you buddy...:bow:

[Strike For The South]

Well he very well could have been. I think there is very little doubt Zimmerman profiled Martin. Now, that doesn't mean Martin can double back and instigate a fight but it does lend credence to the presidents words. The nebulous concept of "black frustration" has more to do with the profiling part.

Georgia sucks, Sherman should have finished the job :bow:

[Major Robert Dump]

So, um, whats with the rescue of the family in the burning car? Seen a lot of news articles saying it was staged, but those come from the typical no-source left wing blogs that have zero credibility imo.

[PanzerJaeger]

I thought this was a surprisingly refreshing bit of commentary from the cesspool that is cable news.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhitsQt69Zo

Working in real estate, I can attest to the way blacks live. No other group of people we rent to are more uniformly destructive to the property and the environment in which they live. It is incredible how quickly they can completely destroy an apartment. And this isn't a geographic or socioeconomic issue either. We have property all across the country and have residents of all different ethnicity paying the same rent, and yet, you can count on rehabbing the entire interior of a unit versus a simple paint and carpet job when the residents are black.

It's a symptom of a culture of apathy that is destroying many of America's inner cities in the same manner on a macro level - a culture we are all too afraid to confront outside of internet anonymity, myself included.

[TheLastDays]

So you mean destrucivism is inherent to being black? :inquisitive:

[Sarmatian]

So you mean destrucivism is inherent to being black? :inquisitive:

I think he means it is a result of current black subculture.

[TheLastDays]

Well that of course depends on where in the world. Unfortunately I've never even been to the US so I can't really say anything about subcultures there.

[Lemur]

I hope nobody from the Org sent money to Zimmerman's legal defense fund. Looks like it's more of a slush pile.

Zimmerman Scammed Gun Nuts Out Of A Lot Of Money; Never Paid Attorneys (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/11/george-zimmerman-scam/)

Zimmerman never paid his defense attorney? What happened to all of the money he raised for his “legal defense fund?” [...] If you visit Zimmerman’s Legal Defense fund web-site you can get a pretty good idea where the majority of the money was spent.

Zimmerman’s web page says that as of January 2, 2013, the “George Zimmerman Defense Fund” had raised a total of $314,099.07. That sounds like a lot of money. The web page goes on to give a not-at-all-detailed break-down of how the money was spent.

The first expense entered shows $95,000 for bail.

That money would have been returned following the not guilty verdict, however, which means this is no longer a valid expense. It also means the money should have been added back into the total at some point.

Next, we see that $61,747.54 was spent for 8 months of living expenses.

And that doesn’t include Zimmerman’s private security, which for 8 months cost an additional $56,100.00. [...]

Leaving that page, and moving to one titled “Moving Forward” which addresses how future donations will be spent, it gets even more interesting. The predicted future expenses include the Zimmerman’s living expenses and private security as the first two items on the page. A bit further down the page, under the heading “Case Related Expenses” it clearly says “Mr. O’Mara and Mr. West have not been paid for their services. Money has been used to pay rent on office space, for IT support, for staff dedicated to the case.”

So by his own admission Zimmerman did not use the Legal Defense Fund donations to pay his attorneys. He spent the majority of the money on living expenses for himself and his wife, who was just paid more than $4,000 for one months living expenses out of the defense fund money.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A bit of a tough career profile. 150k+ is middle/upper middle in the Orlando area and he did risk significant jail time for his "earnings."

[Sp4]

If you live in a country like the UK America is pretty terrifying.

No healthcare and pretty much anybody could be carrying a gun - and there's a chance that if you raise your voice - someone will shoot you. Then, when you get shot and killed, nobody even gets arrested.


That sounds like my two months trip to the US is going to be the most dangerous thing I've ever done XD

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is this Canadian video game speedrunner I watch who was invited to AGDQ in Washington DC and he is scared to even cross the border because he thinks he will be injured and have his life ruined by our healthcare system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is this Canadian video game speedrunner I watch who was invited to AGDQ in Washington DC and he is scared to even cross the border because he thinks he will be injured and have his life ruined by our healthcare system.

Yeah - pretty much.

It's like visiting a Third World country where the government is more likely to hurt you than protect you.

Remember the British professor who was mobbed by three-four NY Police Officers for Jay-Walking, then HE was dragged before a Judge?

In the UK that would have been thrown out for the nature of the arrest, and the cops would be up for disciplinary.

[HoreTore]

Yeah - pretty much.

It's like visiting a Third World country where the government is more likely to hurt you than protect you.

Remember the British professor who was mobbed by three-four NY Police Officers for Jay-Walking, then HE was dragged before a Judge?

In the UK that would have been thrown out for the nature of the arrest, and the cops would be up for disciplinary.

"Zero Tolerance" is the dumbest idea in the history of mankind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Zero Tolerance" is the dumbest idea in the history of mankind.

Can't agree. Too many dumb ideas from too many cultures for me to agree with that claim.

[Strike For The South]

He is a scumbag, we all know that.

Also, I've been living here my entire life and have yet to been shot.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ya America isn't that bad. Only one person has been shot in my neighborhood in the last year and a half. :laugh4:

1 pedophile caught in a police sting, 1 kindergartner dead of a brain tumor, no shootings.

[Lemur]

Whereas in my neck of the woods ... did I mention that the wife took my youngest to Milwaukee today?

Suspect in custody after shots fired at Children's Hospital (http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/news/231932791.html)

WAUWATOSA - A suspect is in custody after reports of shots fired at Children's Hospital Thursday afternoon, the hospital confirmed.

The hospital says there is "no continuing threat."

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke says Wauwatosa Police tried to serve the 22-year-old black male a warrant for his arrest for felony possesion of a firearm on the 7th floor Neonatal Unit.

The suspect fled, and pulled out a handgun. Officers then fired several shots at the suspect, wounding him. He is currently being treated for non-life threatening injuries at Froedtert Hosptial.

[Xiahou]

There is this Canadian video game speedrunner I watch who was invited to AGDQ in Washington DC and he is scared to even cross the border because he thinks he will be injured and have his life ruined by our healthcare system.
That sounds.... irrational.

[drone]

That sounds.... irrational.
If he's going into DC proper, maybe not.


Suspect in custody after shots fired at Children's Hospital (http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/news/231932791.html)

WAUWATOSA - A suspect is in custody after reports of shots fired at Children's Hospital Thursday afternoon, the hospital confirmed.

The hospital says there is "no continuing threat."

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke says Wauwatosa Police tried to serve the 22-year-old black male a warrant for his arrest for felony possesion of a firearm on the 7th floor Neonatal Unit.

The suspect fled, and pulled out a handgun. Officers then fired several shots at the suspect, wounding him. He is currently being treated for non-life threatening injuries at Froedtert Hosptial.

Let me get this straight. The police decided the best place to serve a warrant on an armed individual was in a neo-natal ward? Dahmer proved that Milwaukee cops weren't exactly the brightest, but, really?!?

[HoreTore]

Let me get this straight. The police decided the best place to serve a warrant on an armed individual was in a neo-natal ward? Dahmer proved that Milwaukee cops weren't exactly the brightest, but, really?!?

Never would have been a problem if the babies concealed carried.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That sounds.... irrational.

I agree, and I have told him that more than twice that he will be fine as long as he just exercises common sense, but he says he can't imagine having to stay out of certain areas for a given time period because in Canada you can walk anywhere you want at any time and feel safe. Sure dude, sure.

[Beskar]

I agree, and I have told him that more than twice that he will be fine as long as he just exercises common sense, but he says he can't imagine having to stay out of certain areas for a given time period because in Canada you can walk anywhere you want at any time and feel safe. Sure dude, sure.

Hollywood is to blame.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hollywood is to blame.

I disagree. Ignorance is to blame.

If you choose to let movies dictate your worries and novels undercut your faith or news broadcasts dictate your thinking.....the problem is not the purveyor of the pablum but the person spooning it in.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think the point is that, outside of America, they really only get a Hollywood view of America unless they really go digging.

And there's really no place more out of touch than Hollywood...

Oh no, we're well aware that Hollywood isn't real. If it were we might actually be rabid fanboys shouting USA and think the whole US government consists of marines, FBI, CIA and a few fighter pilots.

No. We get rather more than you seem to be aware of. Like this (http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/13/police-who-rape/). Choice excerpt:

the United States outdoes India when it comes to custodial rapes of women by law enforcement personnel
Fascinating stuff. Let's not get into the forced arrested person to undergo surgical procedures without reason whatsoever details too much, they're less than appetising (http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/07/what-is-the-quantum-of-proof-necessary-for-police-to-rape-and-torture-you-in-new-mexico/).

[Husar]

Well, at least you can buy a gun to defend yourself from the state. Or can you only rent one as a tourist?
How does that work anyway?

[Beskar]

Well, at least you can buy a gun to defend yourself from the state. Or can you only rent one as a tourist?
How does that work anyway?

You are not allowed as you are not American, so you have no rights to the constitution.

[Husar]

You are not allowed as you are not American, so you have no rights to the constitution.

Well, if you buy it to defend yourself from police torture, then I doubt you'd want to ask the police about it first...
In states with background checks it might prove difficult if they don't use the NSA databases for the background checks but on some gun fair in Alabama where noone asks for anything, it might just work, right?

And then, when some cops with shady hoods/hats follow you, you may want to preemptively strike them before they enter your private zones. If you wait until they grab your arms it's too late.

And how can the constitution not apply to me while I'm there? Does that mean the laws don't apply either? I can see how benefits such as unemployment benefits do not apply, but a selective application of rights seem shady. After all the declaration of independence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do I have to assume that they forgot about the rights for all humans around the time they made the constitution? The whole gun debate always boils down to getting a gun to defend your right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Denying the right to defend your life to other humans clearly goes against the spirit of the DoI.

[HoreTore]

Well, if you buy it to defend yourself from police torture, then I doubt you'd want to ask the police about it first...
In states with background checks it might prove difficult if they don't use the NSA databases for the background checks but on some gun fair in Alabama where noone asks for anything, it might just work, right?

And then, when some cops with shady hoods/hats follow you, you may want to preemptively strike them before they enter your private zones. If you wait until they grab your arms it's too late.

And how can the constitution not apply to me while I'm there? Does that mean the laws don't apply either? I can see how benefits such as unemployment benefits do not apply, but a selective application of rights seem shady. After all the declaration of independence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do I have to assume that they forgot about the rights for all humans around the time they made the constitution? The whole gun debate always boils down to getting a gun to defend your right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Denying the right to defend your life to other humans clearly goes against the spirit of the DoI.

The constitution wasn't written for blacks and other brown people, so I doubt it was written for krauts on holiday...

I've never really been able to understand how sensible people can venerate a document written by(and allowing for) people who thought it was a splendid idea to kidnap people and put them to work for the rest of their lives, and kill or rape them as they pleased. What a wonderful bunch of idiots that was.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The constitution wasn't written for blacks and other brown people, so I doubt it was written for krauts on holiday...

I've never really been able to understand how sensible people can venerate a document written by(and allowing for) people who thought it was a splendid idea to kidnap people and put them to work for the rest of their lives, and kill or rape them as they pleased. What a wonderful bunch of idiots that was.

Actually, the only race mentioned in the original text of the Constitution were "Indians." [Amerinds, Native Americans, First Peoples] The only other delineation was between free and non-free persons.

As to the "kidnapping" portion, The Constitution did provide for a ban on the importation of slaves beginning in 1808, and Congress enacted such a law at the earliest possible date mentioned in the Constitution. This followed even earlier attempts to restrict shipping and ship construction for the trade. Nevertheless, slavery was our "original sin" as a nation, stands as the least moral component of our society at the time of our founding, and was not expiated until more than half a million of us died "arguing" the issue.

The Constitution was also written to be amended and improved, which we have done regarding this issue.

I acknowledge that Norway allowed slavery to die out even before the New World was discovered, to your credit, but it is not as though slaves weren't mentioned in your own legal documents of the past (e.g. The Gulating [sic?] code). Dig far enough back and almost all societies fail when judged by today's moral standard on the issue.


Oh, and foreigners (http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/atf-loosens-restrictions-on-gun-sales-to-foreigners?news=843787) living in the USA legally may purchase firearms. The typical residency requirements for purchase functionally restrict sales to tourists. Dealers at shows tend to follow the same rules that brick & mortar stores do regarding firearms, but private sales (person to person, no dealer status), though they are supposed to follow the same basic rules, are difficult to oversee and restrict.

[HoreTore]

First of all Seamus, I go by peoples actions - the constitution was written by slave-owners, and they didn't stop doing it. Obviously, when the constitution talks about "all men being free", black people weren't in their minds(but africans are animals anyway, right?).

And a small history lesson: Gulating was the legal code for the western portion of Norway only, and westerners are widely known to be barbaric savages(just look at Sigurd ). Each part of Norway had their own laws(think of us like a mini-HRE) until Magnus Lagabøte made a law for the entire country a couple of centuries later. Then we became danes, of course, and worked hard to ship slaves over to the US.

Still, I have very few problems with that, just like I have very few problems with the US constitution or even our own jew-banning one. What I do have a problem with are those who make the creators of those laws into divine beings whose unparallelled wisdom created a perfect law for all time. That's the problem, those who can't seem to understand that they where men of their time creating laws for their time, which may not be useful in our time, no more than the laws of the Eidsivating are useful for me.

[Husar]

Well, if you plan to use it against police officers anyway, the legality of acquiring it may be the least of your worries.

As a completely submissive pro-government commie I doubt I'd personally run into any big problems with the police force in the USA, and for the healthcare you usually get some overseas policy from your own insurance before you go abroad, no?

[Lemur]

As a completely submissive pro-government commie I doubt I'd personally run into any big problems with the police force in the USA
Meh, you don't fight the police when they've stopped you. You just don't.*

You put on your serious-and-concerned face, you say "Yes officer" and little else, and you cooperate.** Then (if appropriate) you fight them like hell in court.

On the street it's your word versus his, and the deck is stacked high against you. In court, you're on a much more even footing.

There's a time and a place for everything.




* Unless you believe your life is in immediate danger, but that's whole other topic, and kinda tricky to deal with correctly.
** With the exception of searches. You never agree to a search of anything. They may do it anyway, but you state clearly, "I do not consent to you searching my person/car/boat/home/whatever." It matters that you say this.

[Pannonian]

The constitution wasn't written for blacks and other brown people, so I doubt it was written for krauts on holiday...


The signatories weren't too fond of kraut tourists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldiers)), since they mostly came on British package holidays.

[HoreTore]

Its a known fact that cops suck, but like many things in America it really varies from state to state.

You get the cops you deserve. And the cops you want.


America wants to be tough on crime. Naturally, you get tough cops.

Euroweenies wants to be soft on crime. We like to put cushions under their armpits, we want to learn a cold-blooded murderer how to do gardening. Thus, we also get soft cops.

[HoreTore]

Rhetoric like that is just stupid. The average American has about as much influence on the nature of the police as you have on the queen of england.

One of the biggest problems is that there is a very specific type of person who seeks to be an American cop, and police departments like it that way. They're holdouts of reactionary thought and hateful intent that self-perpetuate.

You believe the nature of institutions are separate from the culture they reside in...?

....And how often do you elect a public official who promises to be "tough on crime" vs an official who promises to be "soft on crime"?

[HoreTore]

You think we have just one culture?

You think any country has just one culture?

The diversity of cultures within a nation does not mean we can't talk about a national culture, which would be the sum of all the cultures contained within that nation. In the case of the US, that means a national culture of "tough on crime". In Euroweeniestan it means a culture of "soft on crime".

Various parts of society is affected to varying degrees by both the national and local culture. Some parts of society is heavily affected by the national culture and little by the local culture, while other parts are affected little by the national culture and a lot by local culture. Law enforcement would be an example of the former, while sports would be an example of the latter. The reason is logical: crime is a national concern more than a local one, while sports is a local concern more than a national one.

Places in the US who would prefer to be soft on crime suffers the same fate as places in Euroweeniestan who would prefer to be tough on crime: overruled by the national culture.

[HoreTore]

Ya but you are implying the local culture can influence or change the national law enforcement culture. In that you are dangerously misinformed.

What? How and where? Certainly wasn't my intention to do so...

As a rule, minorities are always overruled by the majority.

[Montmorency]

Horetore, there is no such thing as a "sum" of cultures. Maybe there's supervenience in the overlap of cultures, but a "national culture" is not a sum or an aggregate result.


crime is a national concern more than a local one, while sports is a local concern more than a national one.

Other way around.

GC, over time an institution will take on the characteristics of the society surrounding it. It's rather telling, if true, that the Eugene PD "imports" recruits from outside the area.

[Lemur]

The militarization of American police (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko) is a big, complex, ugly topic, and probably deserves its own thread.

[Husar]

Can't the politicians fire the top personnel of the police departments and dictate their policy?

That's what they always do in Hollywood anyway.

[HoreTore]

Hard to take this any other way...

I think we've long since established that in America you very rarely get what you want or deserve, if you are on the right side of history.

Remember I speak commie: "you" refers to "you the nation", not this liberal "you the individual"-nonsense ~;)

[HoreTore]

Other way around.

No, I stand by my way 'round.

Law enforcement is a task given authority from above, a national institution. Sports, on the other hand, are built from the ground up, with no real authority above. Law enforcement will be conducted mostly the same way across a nation, while what sports are played in a given location is a lot more varied. The valley I live in is a good example: where I live, at the end of the river, it's exclusively football and bandy. 30 minutes up the river, at Kongsberg, they play hockey and basketball, and the football enthusiasm is so low I feel like I've entered a new country every time I go to work.

[Montmorency]

Law enforcement is a task given authority from above, a national institution. Sports, on the other hand, are built from the ground up, with no real authority above

Hmm...

For my country and city, it sure seems like the opposite though, on both counts. Law enforcement and penal law can vary more than your view would admit, and not just by state, while basketball, Ami football, and baseball are national institutions in their own right.

Either there's just a difference between countries here, or there's a difference in what our respective perspectives are focusing on.

Maybe it's something that deserves scholarship, I dunno; for my part, I'm OK with declaring you a madman. :wink:

[HoreTore]

Hmm...

For my country and city, it sure seems like the opposite though, on both counts. Law enforcement and penal law can vary more than your view would admit, and not just by state, while basketball, Ami football, and baseball are national institutions in their own right.

Either there's just a difference between countries here, or there's a difference in what our respective perspectives are focusing on.

Maybe it's something that deserves scholarship, I dunno; for my part, I'm OK with declaring you a madman. :wink:

That last bit is probably spot on no matter what the topic is.

Anyway, I am of course speaking from a mainly eurocentric position, without in-depth knowledge of american customs.

I do find it unlikely, however, that basketball, football, handegg and various other sports are enjoyed equally across the US, however. Surely there must be a special focus on one at one place, and a special focus on another at a different place, with the occasional town focused on a completely different sport?

EDIT: I did, however, forget about the utterly retarded way you savages organize your sports activities, without proper sports clubs and all that...

[Tuuvi]

No, I stand by my way 'round.

Law enforcement is a task given authority from above, a national institution. Sports, on the other hand, are built from the ground up, with no real authority above. Law enforcement will be conducted mostly the same way across a nation, while what sports are played in a given location is a lot more varied. The valley I live in is a good example: where I live, at the end of the river, it's exclusively football and bandy. 30 minutes up the river, at Kongsberg, they play hockey and basketball, and the football enthusiasm is so low I feel like I've entered a new country every time I go to work.

In the US, police departments are administered by local governments. Each municipality's police department is an independent entity with its own policies and regulations. There is no over-arching authority over law-enforcement.

Speaking of local variations in sports culture, here in Utah rugby is becoming popular thanks to our Polynesian immigrants, but almost nobody plays lacrosse or hockey.

[Husar]

Yet Lemur's linked interview about the militarization of the police is full of mentions of presidents and federal declarations of war on things.
To say there is no overall national influence on local police is a bit much perhaps. As far as I can tell, a lot of stuff is done by the police so they "can come home to their family". The more often a cop gets shot trying to serve a warrant, the more often cops will be replaced by SWAT teams. If there is an area where the cops face a lot of violence and antagonism, naturally they will want to come back with better vests and bigger guns next time. This is also a trend in the military, where every single loss is becoming more and more of a tragedy and not so much seen as a natural consequence of war. People see they can do this or that to achieve more security, and then they do it. I'd bet officers in a SWAT team are less likely to die serving a warrant than nice guys in blue uniforms ringing the doorbell.

[Ironside]

Yet Lemur's linked interview about the militarization of the police is full of mentions of presidents and federal declarations of war on things.
To say there is no overall national influence on local police is a bit much perhaps. As far as I can tell, a lot of stuff is done by the police so they "can come home to their family". The more often a cop gets shot trying to serve a warrant, the more often cops will be replaced by SWAT teams. If there is an area where the cops face a lot of violence and antagonism, naturally they will want to come back with better vests and bigger guns next time.

That being a US cop is a wastly more dangerous profession than being a western European cop is certainly influencing the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a partial spiral as well, a severe disrespect for the police and severe punishments starts to make killing a cop, rather then simply fleeing, an option.

[Tuuvi]

Yet Lemur's linked interview about the militarization of the police is full of mentions of presidents and federal declarations of war on things.
To say there is no overall national influence on local police is a bit much perhaps. As far as I can tell, a lot of stuff is done by the police so they "can come home to their family". The more often a cop gets shot trying to serve a warrant, the more often cops will be replaced by SWAT teams. If there is an area where the cops face a lot of violence and antagonism, naturally they will want to come back with better vests and bigger guns next time. This is also a trend in the military, where every single loss is becoming more and more of a tragedy and not so much seen as a natural consequence of war. People see they can do this or that to achieve more security, and then they do it. I'd bet officers in a SWAT team are less likely to die serving a warrant than nice guys in blue uniforms ringing the doorbell.

Sure there's a national influence, but there's no national authority, which is what I think HoreTore was getting at. There may be national trends but that doesn't mean that the situation is the same in every town and city, some police departments are better than others.

[Husar]

Ya but you are implying the local culture can influence or change the national law enforcement culture. In that you are dangerously misinformed.


Sure there's a national influence, but there's no national authority, which is what I think HoreTore was getting at. There may be national trends but that doesn't mean that the situation is the same in every town and city, some police departments are better than others.

So what are we arguing about again?

I honestly forgot and either you Americans don't know either, disagree with us Europeans for completely opposite reasons or I really lost track of what it was about. Is policing in America a local issue now or is there a national police culture that has no or very low local variations?

Who is the boss of the San Francisco Police Department and who is the boss of the New York Police Department? I remember that whether there is a Police Department or a Sheriff can vary from place to place and even overlap but aren't all of these somehow being watched by an elected politician or an elected Sheriff? Why does it seem like all the politicians overseeing the police forces grant them the budget for more SWAT teams and armored cars while all the citizens who dislike their use reelect those politicians? Is oit possible that such considerations are drowned during elections in a sea of economic concerns and the problem that there are only two parties and both candidates have the dsame stance on the issue which is why it is also never debated?

[HoreTore]

Sure there's a national influence, but there's no national authority, which is what I think HoreTore was getting at. There may be national trends but that doesn't mean that the situation is the same in every town and city, some police departments are better than others.

This one was so little thought through I was unsure whether I should bother replying to it, but anyway:

There's both national influence and authority.

You can start at the very top, which would be the constitution. Then, you have the congress/federal government. Then you have related branches of law enforcement, like the FBI. And of course, we can't forget about police academies now can we? You may have your own sheriff, but you won't have your own police officers. And so on, and so on... And finally, of course, comes the fact that crime is also a nation-wide issue, and not a local one. The real crime spans several borders.

Sheriff Joe in Alabama can't help being influenced by what the people want the cops to do in New York.

[Husar]

Some sherrifs are elected, some are appointed. Some police chiefs readily work with the feds on all issues, some are reluctant or outright hostile when State, Local, and Federal law conflict. Some police departments work within very restricted legal framework due to State or Local law and Courts, some give cops extroardinary power (Louisiana has a form of Civil Law where one is not necessarily innocent until proven guilty...). Some states are run by jingoey Governers who declare their own state level wars on crime, some states can't field enough cops to stop any crime at all.

And above it all are myriad powerful, secretive, and huge federal law enforcement or Homeland Security programs that not only add to everything else but sometimes conflict with eachother.

I guess my point is that its a very big Country.

First, thanks for the explanations.

And then I guess you would propose to split America up, since every time you have an issue, it's about the country being too big, which supposedly makes all the teething issues unsolvable?

[Tuuvi]

You may have your own sheriff, but you won't have your own police officers..

This is where you are wrong and this is what I've been trying to argue against. Sorry if I'm not doing a very good job. Here in the US, you do have your own police officers. Each police department does it's own hiring, and it dictates its own policies and procedures. This is what I meant when I said there "is no over-arching authority", I was not referring to the authority to enforce the law, but rather the authority to oversee and manage the nation's police force. Yes there are national law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, but they cannot and do not enforce local and state laws and they are not the ones interacting with the populace on a day-to-day basis . Please see GC's post for a better explanation.

I don't disagree that there is national influence, I just believe that you are wrong about there being little to no local influence. It's a mixture of both. Sheriff Joe was elected by the people of Redneck County, Alabama to run his county's police force. Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama don't have the authority to tell him how to do his job. The manner in which he conducts his department will be influenced by national trends in law enforcement, but they will also influenced by Sheriff Joe's upbringing, the culture he grew up in (which in a rural area was most likely the local one), and the nature of crime in his county. A rural county in Alabama has vastly different demographics than a dense, urban metropolis like New York, which means there will be different types of crime, different types of criminals, and possibly different crime rates. You won't find the Mafia in rural Alabama, and cops in New York probably have better things to do than hiding in the trees waiting for speeders to drive by.

[Beskar]

He is now arrested for pulling a shotgun on his Wife, battery, assault, domestic violence and criminal mischief. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24995459)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently he left his wife - this is his new girlfriend.

Well - I suppose once you've killed one innocent person, it just gets easier.

Guilty as Sin.

[HoreTore]

Each police department does it's own hiring,

...And thoe newly hired cops, they just appear out of thin air? They don't come from somewhere?


and it dictates its own policies and procedures.

....within the limits set by authorities above.

[HoreTore]

Lol you really are having trouble getting it. Every state and many cities have their own police academies. Every state has different fundamental procedures and laws in one major aspect of law enforcement or another.

I think you're vastly underestimating the socializing effects of institutions.

You can say the exact same thing about teachers and schools, but lord knows there's little difference between schools and teachers. No matter what the teacher college program actually say they offer, we still come out according to which pedagogical wind is blowing.

[drone]

You can say the exact same thing about teachers and schools, but lord knows there's little difference between schools and teachers. No matter what the teacher college program actually say they offer, we still come out according to which pedagogical wind is blowing.
There is a huge difference between schools from state to state, and even county to county in this country. Schools are funded at the local levels, this causes all sorts of disparities in the quality and scope. The myriad of threads on schools teaching ID here in the backroom should have clued you in on this.

Federal law enforcement is different than state police, and state police are different than local police, they focus on different crimes and won't interfere with the locals unless you get publicized institutional shenanigans.

[HoreTore]

There is a huge difference between schools from state to state, and even county to county in this country. Schools are funded at the local levels, this causes all sorts of disparities in the quality and scope. The myriad of threads on schools teaching ID here in the backroom should have clued you in on this.

Federal law enforcement is different than state police, and state police are different than local police, they focus on different crimes and won't interfere with the locals unless you get publicized institutional shenanigans.

Whether or not they teach ID is a cosmetic difference. Pedagogical differences are what counts, and they're minimal.

As for the rest, you're stuck on technicalities which doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about. How it should matter that different agencies focus on different things is quite beyond me when the issue is cultural influence.

But just to get things straight: it is your opinion that there is no influence whatsoever, and that each US police department exists in a vacuum?

And that US institutions popped out like daisies, and have few or no connections to US culture?

[rvg]

... Pedagogical differences are what counts, and they're minimal...
Oh man, you're sooooo wrong. The differences are HUGE. Drone mentioned large variations between schools within the same county, and he's absolutely right: it happens across the nation. He knows what he's talking about, while you dismiss him without having a good idea about how American educational system works (or doesn't work depending on school).

[HoreTore]

Oh man, you're sooooo wrong. The differences are HUGE. Drone mentioned large variations between schools within the same county, and he's absolutely right: it happens across the nation. He knows what he's talking about, while you dismiss him without having a good idea about how American educational system works (or doesn't work depending on school).

Would you care to give a specific example?

[rvg]

Would you care to give a specific example?
Sure, just within my lovely Oakland county Michigan, if you look at the Bloomfield Hills school district or a Birmingham school district, they both have excellent schools with high rating, great funding, competent teachers, etc.
Now if you look at the Pontiac schools or Southfield schools, it's a nightmare. This is all within one county, I'm not even touching the cesspools like Detroit or Flint.

[HoreTore]

Sure, just within my lovely Oakland county Michigan, if you look at the Bloomfield Hills school district or a Birmingham school district, they both have excellent schools with high rating, great funding, competent teachers, etc.
Now if you look at the Pontiac schools or Southfield schools, it's a nightmare. This is all within one county, I'm not even touching the cesspools like Detroit or Flint.

I note that you are incapable of giving an example of pedagogical differences.

Good day to you, sir.

[rvg]

I note that you are incapable of giving an example of pedagogical differences.

Good day to you, sir.

:laugh4:

Crap pedagogue vs Good pedagogue ... There's your pedagogical difference. Not to mention that individual schools customize their programs significantly.

[drone]

Whether or not they teach ID is a cosmetic difference. Pedagogical differences are what counts, and they're minimal.
In my county, we have public schools, private schools, magnet schools, Catholic schools, and Montessori schools, in addition to all the home schoolers. The county sets standards for the public schools, and can regulate to some extant the others but they are for the most part free to teach how they like. The quality of the public schools varies greatly, so much that property values of homes are affected by the school district they sit in.

As for the rest, you're stuck on technicalities which doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about. How it should matter that different agencies focus on different things is quite beyond me when the issue is cultural influence.

But just to get things straight: it is your opinion that there is no influence whatsoever, and that each US police department exists in a vacuum?
I don't think anyone is arguing that there is no influence. But you don't seem to understand how jurisdiction works in this country. Training and requirements for federal officers differ greatly than, say, the Chicago PD.

And that US institutions popped out like daisies, and have few or no connections to US culture?
This is the problem with your thinking. What is "US culture"?

[Greyblades]

Its fun watching the Org's two ideological extremes play debate ping pong on two threads simultaneously.

[HoreTore]

are for the most part free to teach how they like.

Yes.... And my argument is that they end up teaching mostly in the same way, due to the socializing effects of the educational institutions(who will in turn be affected by the culture in which they operate).

I will argue that you will see a larger difference in pedagogical practice between a maths teacher and a language teacher* at the same school, than you will see between two maths teachers at different schools.

*not to mention art teachers, but they don't count since they're aliens.


This is the problem with your thinking. What is "US culture"?

Are you suggesting that it does not exist? If so, are you talking specifically about the US, or do you deny the existence of any national culture?

[Montmorency]

I will argue that you will see a larger difference in pedagogical practice between a maths teacher and a language teacher* at the same school, than you will see between two maths teachers at different schools.

What would you say regarding the difference between a math teacher and a language teacher at the same school versus the difference between two maths teachers in different countries?

[HoreTore]

What would you say regarding the difference between a math teacher and a language teacher at the same school versus the difference between two maths teachers in different countries?

Depends on the countries, but the difference I experienced teaching in Tanzania was extreme(and not just because of poverty, we visited private schools as well).

There's also quite a difference between myself and my british coworkers.

[Montmorency]

Could you elaborate on the nature of the differences in each case?

As in, how are Tanzanian/British math teachers different from Norwegian math teachers (of course including teachers besides yourself)?

[Tuuvi]

HoreTore, in order to help you understand better I think the differences in police culture between communities in the US can be compared to the differences in corporate culture between companies.

Yes, there is a national corporate culture and American companies as a group will do things differently then say, Japanese companies. American execs most likely recieved their MBAs from American universities and so they have been socialized to do business the American way. But even then, American companies are independent organizations and there are cultural differences between them. They structure themselves differently, take different approaches to marketing, and so forth. Some companies have more productive employees, some are more competitive and some are organized more efficiently than others. Some companies are slave drivers while others treat their employees well. Think Microsoft vs. Apple. Both are American tech companies, yet they are very different.

The same can be said for police departments in the US. As I have said before, they are independent organizations that dictate their own policies and procedures. In one city, you might get tazed just for jay-walking, but another city might have better training for its officers and stricter regulations so this kind of abuse isn't common. The former city maybe takes a "tough on crime" stance, while the latter has a "community policing" approach.

[Montmorency]

One variable to illustrate, maybe: some police departments encourage citizens to record officers, even going so far as to mount cameras on the officers themselves; many others are extremely hostile to the thought that police activities might be recorded by even the police themselves, and treat recording citizens very roughly indeed.

[rvg]

More importantly, if some cops prefer to taze people while other stick with the trusty batons, could these approaches be the result of pedagogical differences between police departments?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

More importantly, if some cops prefer to taze people while other stick with the trusty batons, could these approaches be the result of pedagogical differences between police departments?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Yup.

Well, almost. It would not be the result of, it would simply be.