George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

We do agree on enough physical fact to establish that Zimmerman acted improperly, and started the fight, and shot the kid.

We know, for example, that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, armed. At that point Martin was being threatened with serious harm - when an angry looking guy follows you down the street at night in his truck, catches you alone, and gets out of the truck, you are in a fight or flight situation: either one justified. Martin was near home, which means he was cornered: if he had run home he would have lead the creep to his house, the guy would know where he lived.

We also know that Zimmerman followed the kid because Zimmerman thought he was up to no good, and so strongly resembled criminals afflicting the area that he was worth following with difficulty - the only basis for that was Martin's race, since he resembled those criminals in no other significant way (they did not work alone, they did not operate in the rain, they did not generally operate on foot, etc etc etc).

And we know that Zimmerman brought the gun with him on purpose, despite its weight and general inconvenience when following someone, and therefore was anticipating confrontation when he got out of the truck. He did not bring his phone, apparently, or at least did not have it handy (?) - so keeping the police apprised of his own or Martin's location was not foremost on his agenda.

So we have racist presumption, negligence, and confrontational threat by Zimmerman, leading directly to him shooting someone. We know this, we are agreed on this. So if you find "nigger hunt" objectionable, we can probably find another term - but it's not going to be judgment free and accurate both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Counting the Blessings, or, Hoping for a Silver Thread ....

Revisiting a Silly Notion

Every once in a while, absolute nonsense, even vicious absolute nonsense, pays off.

A notion just occurred to me, and it was so incongruous to the way I've been looking at this that I stopped to wonder why I was thinking about it in the first place.

Survey says!

That sort of game is childish, indeed. But here's the thing, I haven't a clue when the idea would finally have crystallized without having witnessed such catalyzing stupidity. As I noted at the time:

By your standard, the fact that Trayvon Martin was ever born is a testament to his culpability.​

And sometime since, it randomly occurred to me that the same cannot be said of George Zimmerman.

What is the probability, at the time of his birth, that George Zimmerman would eventually buy a gun?

What is the probability, at the time of his birth, that Trayvon Martin would eventually be suspected of criminal behavior on the basis of his skin color?

To the first, it's a difficult answer. There are, certainly, some circumstances where the probability can approach inevitability, with the caveat that those circumstances do not lead to one's premature death, i.e., before coming of age to properly buy a handgun.

It is uncertain exactly how long Trayvon Martin needs to live in order for the probability to achieve 1:1. Observably, that occurred before he was of age to properly buy a handgun.

It is also, statistically speaking, virtually certain that this was not the first time Trayvon Martin was suspected criminally because of his skin color.

The sickening irony, of course, is that his death was not the last.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps it's just simply that in the face of tragedy people search for meaning or a way of understanding what went wrong, some single underlying cause to such events. It took many variables for Trayvon Martin to end up dead, so yes it may seem silly to single out any particular events for a single incident certainly with you on that one. But what I think we can do is take one single variable from Trayvon Martin's death and look for this same variable in the deaths of many others. Clearly this would be a common denominator, a single variable that if changed would mean that so many more people would be alive today or may not die tomorrow or the day after.

Trayvon Martin's death should serve as a wake up call to all those that think possessing lethal firearms is a noble thing to do. Was George Zimmerman defending himself? probarbly, should he have been convicted of murder?, the evidence and jury said no, did Trayvon Martin really need to die? I think not. Surely this whole trial should spark a debate about defending yourself with non-lethal force.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It’s a conundrum: when faced with barbarity, does one become a barbarian, or take the high ground? If I’m civilized to Tiassa, do I lose, merely on the happenstance of him being an asshole? I never know.

I have to contradict my statement above. It should read:
"Yet almost alone among all the posters on this thread, you have concerned yourself almost solely with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, rather than the facts of the case."
Perhaps that will smooth over the complaint, though I doubt it. Tiassa, I'm going to step out on a thick limb here and assert that your statistical background is relatively limited. It might be of note to ask whether this predictive quality you assert is as powerful as you think it is. You seem to be taking it up as an overriding factor in the Zimmerman/Martin case: because of the background statistics you feel he must be guilty. I’m no huge fan of your legal system, but that is a bridge just a little too far. Your stated interest is the statistics of racial justice. Okay. That doesn’t mean this guy is guilty of the same. I asked you before whether surely a better case might not exist. Instead of answering that question, you flew off on unfounded accusations of racism. Is this your litmus test for veracity?
You don't know that bias has been demonstrated among the jurors, or even in Zimmerman himself. You conclude that it’s so, but hardly dare to touch the facts that are known. If I were an inferring kind of fellow, I’d infer why that was so. I reiterate: is there no other case that demonstrates your assertion more handily? There utterly must be one: a case in which fingers can be pointed and the statement can be made: that was a racist call. Do you understand that? And so it's not a racist inquiry. You can assert that, if you like, but it suggests your own biases far more than any imaginary qualities you’d like to try to imbue me with.

Correct! This is certainly so: you don't get to be a dishonest prig, in a discussion, Tiassa. Should I then, in the classic ‘Tiassa’s Wife-Beating Variant’, assume you’re just blithely stupid? We all get that you feel very strongly about this issue. Very, very strongly. I get it, Tiassa. I really do. But do you really think name-calling is going to help your viewpoint? Or is this just about making you feel better? Instead of relying on rage and hate, how about a discussion of the case itself? I'm sorry that the first post raised such questions about your character: but I do wonder whether this case is actually what you make out, or something you’ve chosen to embrace because it speaks to inner anger. The truth is not evident in this case - unless you've already made up your mind. I know it doesn't lie with Zimmerman's supporters, who draw in peripheral issues to make him look better, and I know it doesn't lie with the bald assertions of Martin's supporters about motivation and position. Can you see that, through all the froth?

You realise that that was an introduction to a more complex point that then eluded you? Or you it, perhaps.

Your ignorance has not gotten any prettier with rage, Tiassa. I'm wondering whether I should bother asking, as it will simply lead off into more leading invective, and that into more invective, and so on, over the horizon of your own incomprehensibility. I mean, I get it: you’re angry about the case, and not much else matters. You’re in a rage, and you want everyone to know it. Good for you.

Still: where exactly did I defend the racism of self-defense outcomes? I’m not even sure how one does that, and I think you realise that the accusation is absurd. I was under the impression I was speaking of Zimmerman here, specifically, but you have somehow conflated this to either a commitment to racist imperative, or else the denial of statistics. I will leave this one to your own sense of reflection, and shame.

If Zimmerman is innocent, but was still convicted of the crime, he might well be such a sacrificial lamb – put up for reasons of political expediency. It happens, and it would be disingenuous to say that it doesn’t. What I’m saying is that Zimmerman may well be a sacrificial lamb for you, because the facts don’t strongly back either innocence or guilt, so far as I can tell.

You have left aside writing skills with all reasonability at this point, and are engaging in mindless character attacks. I have come to expect it, to a degree: the kind of adolescent groping for the convention of popular support via sheer assertion and surliness. Unfortunately, it doesn’t wash with my kids, and it doesn’t wash now. I should infer from the above that a) I am apparently very very racist because I do not agree with your interpretation of the case, so far as you have bothered to read it, and b) that you would be in a sufficiently intellectually strong that you could judge the above. Neither of these are so. My position is in neither of the two positions of the respective camps, for reasons of doubt, imperative, and critique. I understand full well that you have put the case on your shoulder and dared anyone to knock it over, lacking all conception as to veracity, because you'd already decided. That is entirely immaterial. You are not a sixteen-year old child. You are – reputedly – a grown man. Start acting like one.

In fact, that part of the conversation went like this:

My emphasis. It was poor judgement to carry on following Martin, and not to identify himself (I don't know if he did or not, or even was planning to) but not defiance of an order. Even if it had been a direct order, it would not have been a “[bad racial word] hunt” had he continued following, for reasons I illustrate below.

A confrontation, yes. A physical one? A lethal one? Did he just start hitting Martin? There’s as much evidence to indicate that Martin chose to start a fight as Zimmerman: and confrontation is not altercation let alone pugilation. Those who have said that any usage of SYG (or whatever sliding impression such a concept left on the jurors) is a poor system may well be right: even as you and iceaura read it, there seems to be a slippery slope of interpretation, and others have suggested this influenced the jury. But confrontation does not imply that a fistfight is in the offing, and even if it did, it would be difficult to decide who started it: Zimmerman followed, Martin doubled back. I was ‘confronted’ several times by my elders during my teens, sometimes in the process of illicit or semi-illicit behaviour. At no time did it descend into a fistfight unless I so chose. I don't know who started the fistfight, and neither do you - but I expect you think you do. Similarly, you suppose things about my character you are in no position to judge. Take a moment and step back.

Why would he need to? He brought fists there too, but he had no more need to use them than anything else. A fight was chosen – but it is not clear by who, or if both of them so chose.

And it could be argued as easily that all Martin had to do was do the same. You assert that Martin had probably been accused many times on basis of his race: that’s possible, maybe even likely, depending. Does that mean he earned the right to start a fight with Zimmerman? Did he start such a fight?

I would think it’s an alleged statement. I haven’t seen it, but would appreciate a link, if you can tear yourself away from accusing me of racism. I suspect, however, it would be little different to the kind of thing that Martin’s supporters would say if they had the wherewithal to do so. What do you think it means?

What’s more important about that concept is whose scapegoat Zimmerman is or isn’t. You confound concepts here with language: a) Your view is that the statistics of SYG are indicative of strong racial bias in findings. That's actually true: they are. b) But your argument is based almost entirely on this selfsame fact. So Zimmerman - for you - seems to represent a scapegoat for your feelings on point a). Zimmerman isn't society's scapegoat - lest he be truly innocent, which I have no conclusion at this time about - but he is your scapegoat. You have argued few facts, and much background statistics until the last few posts.

Tiassa, in many ways, you’re as free to hate me as much as you like. In your mind, I could very well be your own, personal Zimmerman. (Three syllables, doesn’t fit the lyrics but singers have mush-mouth anyway.) But you’re not really at liberty to make such accusations, and most extremely so when based on sweet fuck all. I get you, for sure, five-by-five: you really, really hate this guy and similarly anyone guilty in your mind of defending him. But an objective look at the facts is not a defense of Zimmerman, unless your own bias supercedes those facts for reasons of some kind of racial narrative. One would call that racism, in fact: and conclusively so.

- that being, for your argument -

And that's where your analysis stopped, until the last few posts.
I was angry, initially, about your spouting off. I decided on the whole to largely let it drop. So I guess I answered my question, above. I have one of these psychologies where I assume instantly that whatever people accuse me of must be true, somehow. If you’d accused me of being, say, a nationalist Sikh, I could dismiss it on the surface out of hand – but there would be some part of me always wondering “…but… am I some kind of latent nationalist for Sikh causes via indirect means?” I think I’ve finally got over that ridiculousness. I guess I don’t have a nose for bullshit any more. No adenoids, that kind of deal.
But don’t get me wrong: the facts of our discussion speak, Tiassa, and they are not singing your tune. You owe me an apology, of course, and of course none will be forthcoming. I assume there will be a fair bit of screechy complaining in the mod forum, and my little bird will give me a heads-up about it (if he ever returns). But – surprise me. It’s not only for purposes of this argument that I suggest it. Hell, I might be wrong too, someday

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, and knowing that there was a mature precedent out might make it that much easier to fess up. And in that sense: sorry about slamming you earlier. Maybe I really did work you up. Maybe it was unfair based on your social investment in the case. And if so, I apologize.

 

I wonder, given the known facts, whether the prosecution could have argued for manslaughter instead. That would seem a lot more probable. Or another lesser charge. 'Misadventure'? I don't know that it could be called those things either, but a man was shot as a result of a fistfight. Then it would come down to whether Zimmerman really feared for his life, or didn't.

 

Probably on improperly - being confronted verbally isn't enough to invoke any kind of self-defense, unless Zimmerman was racially abusing him or something - and yes on the shooting, but a solid 'I don't know' on the fighting.

But they were talking.

The fighting started after that. I think I'd have interpreted that as a challenge, not a threat.

This I haven't seen yet - is there a summary of their operation method? I suspect it might be varied.

He did report that (presumed) location, however. And I found this:

That makes it sound like he had his phone.

I agreed partially to the first element, but I'm not completely satisfied on the others. From the sounds of it, I don't know if we're going to achieve conclusion here. Thanks for the post, iceaura.

 

Also this one:

Unless he's driving the Fred Flintstone care, I don't think he could be huffing and puffing. They do strange things in Florida, though.

 

The gun nuts have been talking about this all along - Martin was in one of those classic situations that disturb the sleep of the 2nd Amendment absolutist: alone in the dark far from any hope of police protection, followed and threatened by a shadowy stranger out to do him harm for mysterious reasons, he had only his fists to protect himself with. So he ended up dead.

Or as I can confidently predict you will find on many gun rights advocate websites right now, Trayvon would be better off judged by twelve than carried by six, better off facing the shitstorm than six feet under it.

Zimmerman's getting out of the truck was a threat. Have you ever been in that situation? Some angry strange guy follows you in a pickup until he can catch you alone, and then gets out of the truck? That's hair trigger threat - I'm a physically capable and easygoing white man, but I would make it clear that about ten feet is as close as peacefulness is guaranteed. A woman or a teenage black kid would be in even more danger from allowing such an approach.

Following me and getting too close to me in that manner would provoke fairly serious self defense, even if I weren't cornered near my house - if Zimmerman was close enough to punch, he was way too damn close for me. I'm supposed to let a creepy guy with an agenda walk up on me like that? I don't think so. He can talk from a safe distance, I've got ears.

I've been stopped on the sidewalk at night by actual police in plainclothes, and they started showing the badges from twenty feet or more - Zimmerman could hardly have missed the implications of close approach, if he was granting Martin status as an individual.

Sounds like Z did bring his phone, so not completely clueless - too bad about the gun.

There was a description in the papers of the recent neighborhood property crimes in which Zimmerman had knowledge of the perps - they were the usual, small groups of guys and some gals. In my town small time burglars and thieves don't run around by themselves in the rain - crime rates drop in inclement weather. I confess to assuming a common criminal character in Florida, perhaps even more so because rain is comparatively mild weather here compared with blizzards and sleet and 15 below at night.

 

Yes it certainly seems odd they pressed the murder charge when clearly they didn't have the evidence. It seems either they fail, which they did spectacularly, or they convict someone of murder who wasn't actually guilty such a serious crime, either way the prosecution have failed at their job. No wonder it's up for enquiry.

Yes well it's about time people simply realise a lethal firearm and lethal ammunition don't make people safer, they just make people dead. Ok people need to defend themselves, but surely in this day and age we have the technology and inteligence to do that without killing people.

Personally I still think let all the gun lovers keep their weapons, but make lethal ammunition illegal, and let everyone have none lethal rubber bullets. 2nd amendment rights are still protected but less people die.

 

You are making zero sense. I just posted up a trial of a black man who shot and killed an unarmed white 16 year old, who hadn't even punched but just rushed at him. It bounces off you like water off the back of a duck.

One more time: George Zimmerman defended a homeless black man against the local police lieutenant's son in a public forum, he tutored black kids in his own home, his grandfather was half black, he didn't even mention the person's race when on the 911 call, he was the one punched in the nose, he was the one yelling for help as his head was being pounded into the cement while the young man doing it told him he was going to die. He was unbelievably relieved when told the entire incident was filmed. Want to know why? Because of people like you Tiassa. You want to talk about racism? Take a good look in the mirror. You sit in front of your TV listening to the talking heads tell you what to do, what to think, what to say and worse off - you do just that. White Hispanic!? Jesus, you're literally parroting back to me exactly what I could find if I wasted my time watching MSM.

Seriously, stop and think about that.


Oh, and for the record, there's nothing wrong with 'following' someone. It's not 'stalking'. Stalking has a very specific legal definition and is a crime. Following someone because you think they may be planning a B&E is perfectly legal. Ignoring 911 advice is also perfectly legal. Thinking for yourself is *gasp* perfectly legal. AND get this, Zimmerman was probably correct - Trayvon was found with a bag of woman's jewelry and 'burglary tool'/flat head, did you forget that.

And you want a Civil Lawsuit?!? Did you also forget about that little something called no double jeopardy Tiassa!?!? And your rant to 'make his family pay'? Jesus... that makes you sound like a redneck Taliban hick.

So, one more time: In 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun. Roderick was and is innocent. No one needed to make his 'family pay'. He wasn't happy. Can you imagine what HELL it must be like knowing you killed another human - and a child at that. I'm sure it's something he'll never get over. The fact you didn't hear this story on the MSM is good evidence you've been had. Played out like a bitch by the MSM. Probably bought a few things at the grocery store that were on the ads running in between the Zimmerman news STORY and didn't even realize it.



Meanwhile, we have REAL issues going on, an economy cratering due to 80 years of Central Planning, a Fascist government using the NSA to record our conversations (actually everything), the top 1% have made ALL of the gains in GDP over the last 5 years, and now we have some companies that are TBTF? WTF is that? Nothing is TBTF - and if it is, it must be dismantled, in some cities over 50% of children leaving public schools *puke* are functionally illiterate, there are more black men in prison in the USA - than in ALL of Africa. So, go on and keep wasting your time and efforts with this sort of bullshit - OR, maybe spend your time a little more wisely. Society isn't going to fix itself.

 

not to mention that he would have still probably been out considering the nba allstar game that year didn't start until 8:30

 

again you don't know that your just believing the word of a known liar who just killed someone.

than why wasn't used at the trial? oh wait because it wasn't filmed.

 

*face palm*

This is pointless.

 

[shrug] Joe, when your argument rests on the assumption that a lot of key people must be lying, that sounds pretty paranoid and illogical to me. More to the point, if we are to assume anyone we want is lying, then there really isn't any basis for discussing anything, ever, because we can assume the truth to be whatever we want it to be.

Your assumption that this juror is lying also requires incompetence by the rest of the jury that that this juror is covering-up with a proper logical argument that the rest of the jury didn't accept but nonetheless ended up ruling in-line with. It makes no sense.

I prefer to believe that the juror didn't lie to me, that they had a good grasp of the evidence and therefore they properly applied the law.

Good, so you've corrected your previous wrong claim that the jury was not unanimous: you are indeed aware that it was and that a first vote isn't actually part of the ruling of the jury, which was, in fact, unanimous.

Thanks for the clarification. So the juror said SYG mattered because the self-defense provision is treated as being all one whole. That's fine: It makes the juror's statements accurate and consistent and not contradicting mine. And it doesn't change the fact that the SYG part of the provision is a specific part that exists in 22 self defense statutes and doesn't exist in the other 29. So you (and others) should clarify: do you want to eliminate the concept of self defense altogether or just the SYG portion of it? Because frankly it sounds to me like you guys are arguing both sides of that out of convenience and argumentativeness: I doubt any of you seriously want to eliminate self defense altogether even though your arguments are sometimes stated that way.

What's the difference? The difference is in whether or not Zimmerman would have been acquitted in one of the 28 non-SYG states (plus federal). The answer according to what the juror said was the basis of the decision is yes. The answer based on eliminating self defense altogether would be no.

 

Uh, really? Zimmerman haters have argued that Zimmerman wasn't badly enough beaten to have a legitimate claim of self defense, but you think that he threatened Martin just by getting out of his car? I suppose then that you think Martin (if he had a gun) could have shot Zimmerman from hiding and still claim self-defense? How am I supposed to restrain my laughter at that? I went to a supermarket for lunch today and nobody felt threatened by me when I got out of my car - I guess I'm lucky I didn't get shot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The most ridiculous part of all of this is the lack of reciprocity. We're going far beyond just flipping this to a mirror image to see if it still applies, we're looking at absurdities and people are still seeing Zimmerman as the aggressor.

Sure, but the consequences to him are different for different cases: Accidental discharge is not murder/manslaughter either.

 

Never got back to this:

Thanks for the correction. Not sure if that means it was an honest mistake, error or attempt at deception. But either way.

1. No, he wasn't a judge.
2. No, not for "the supreme court" (without context, meant to imply US Supreme Court).
3. Not in Florida and not current. So it would have to be quite the inter-state conspiracy for that to have had any impact here.

 

LOL, huh, no, my statement was pretty clear. You have repeatedly put words in the mouths of the jurors. You have repeatedly made claims about the Zimmerman jurors that is not evidenced with fact. That has nothing to do with paranoia. It has nothing to do with assumptions on my part. It is a pretty blatant observable fact.

You are right, what you wrote makes absolutely no sense. I assumed nothing. I suggest you go back and read what I said about her. Use a dictionary if needed. In any case, 4 other jurors issued a letter through the court distancing themselves for juror B37…the juror upon which you have based your entire case.

“Despite spending 22 days together, four of the jurors have distanced themselves from statements another juror made in a televised interview.

The four jurors issued a brief statement Tuesday on court letterhead saying the opinions expressed by Juror B37 to CNN's Anderson Cooper are not representative of their views.

"The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," said the statement, signed by Jurors B51, B76, E6 and E40. The six-sentence statement did not specify what parts of the other juror's comments they disagreed with. “

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_23676368/other-jurors-distance-themselves-from-juror-b37

You have repeatedly stated made claims about the Zimmerman jurors for which you have zero proof – zero evidence. And you have been repeatedly wrong. That is why we are seeing all of this obfuscation.

Instead of trying to set up yet another straw man, I suggest your pay attention and at least attempt reasoned thought. I’ll repeat myself once again for your edification. According to the juror you like, the juror who was trying to use her juror experience to acquire a book deal, contrary to your notion of jury unanimity, the juror was not unanimous. Half thought Zimmerman was guilty. But according to your juror, B37, they voted for acquittal based on an interpretation of the law…the SYG law.

Read more: $33,000 spent on sequestered jurors - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage...tance-themselves-from-juror-b37#ixzz2ZqdirvHQ
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

That is your bias, of that there is no doubt.

You really are either delusional, dishonest or going senile. I have only corrected you my friend.

No one is arguing against self-defense. What is being argued is that people are not entitled to hunt others down and kill them. And idiots without a lick of commonsense should not be carrying around guns. Every confrontation does not need to end in death.

 

It was the stalking by GZ that instigated the defensive behavior that was likely exhibited by TM. As long as GZ lingered in the area that TM justifiably considered home turf, TM had reason to be apprehensive of this unidentified intruder of his space. It really doesn’t matter what led to their final encounter, what matters is what would likely provoke TM to physically engage GZ. If TM was intent on physically attacking GZ, I doubt he would’ve bothered to question his intentions, an ambush would make more sense. Since we know from the testimony of GZ and RJ that the two had words prior to the tussle, there must have been some posturing on GZ’s part that triggered TM’s assault. If GZ had identified himself as a resident and that he had just called the cops, TM would’ve likely backed off. If on the other hand GZ made no attempt to ID himself and made a move for his weapon, TM would have no choice but to attempt to prevent GZ from using it on him. At this point control of the gun becomes imperative to the survival of each. GZ’s recklessness in his handling of the entire situation has unnecessarily escalated it to a lethal outcome, where TM pays with his life and GZ escapes accountability for his negligence. The fact that the jury found otherwise is either a failing in the presentation by the prosecution or in the reasoning abilities of the jurors.

 

I'm not American, but I don't know about that second point specifically. Black teens get beat up by Hispanic men? Actually you might have a point there. But he did ask him "What are you doing here?" rather than "I'm going to kick your ass" right off the bat. He wasn't physically cornered either - he had lots of open space. What agenda did Martin think the creepy "cracker" had? And lastly, no one knows how close Zimmerman was when the fight started - you can be outside punch range and start, just by a simple short charge. I do agree that the whole thing could easily have stayed at words, and that Zimmerman should have identified himself right off the bat. It was just stupid that he didn't.

That's a good point. Would they cover this in Zimmerman's Watch training?

Yeah. My suspicion is that they were both pushing for a fight - the gun, "cracker", "these [??] always get away".

Yeah - snow kills that sort of thing, but I never really had a problem with the rain. Never understood why rain put people off. It's the smart time to do it. Am I wrong?

I guess that would break with M.O., but on the other side Zimmerman did think it was odd specifically because of that. Human perfidity.