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.
Well, then, Geoff, let's try this again:
"Yet almost alone among all the posters on this thread, you have concerned yourself with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, rather than the facts of the case."
Given that the facts of this case reflect, and are predictable according to, the history of the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, why are you asking such a racist question?
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.
You don't get to be a self-righteous prig when you're being dishonest.
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?
Perhaps you might advise as to the significance you see in reminding people of the obvious that is already included in the record. I would suggest that if you wish to be taken in any credible context, you ought to start dealing with reality instead of tilting windmills.
You realise that that was an introduction to a more complex point that then eluded you? Or you it, perhaps.
That you would defend the racism of self-defense outcomes is beyond suggestive or indicative; it's conclusive.
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.
Zimmerman isn't the sacrificial lamb here, Geoff. The sacrifical lamb is dead, and exactly according to design.
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.
Look, you have the right to be as racist as you want to be
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.
Now, pay attention to this part:
George Zimmerman was told by emergency responders to not pursue Trayvon Martin. He chose to pursue him anyway.
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.
When Zimmerman defied instruction from emergency responders in order to pursue a confrontation, he chose to pursue a confrontation.
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.
He did so carrying a gun that he knew he would use if he needed to.
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.
All he had to do was not deliberately pursue a confrontation.
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?
Why do you think his supporters were going around to the media telling conflicting stories that George allegedly told them that would erase from the chronology the fact that he pursued Trayvon Martin?
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?
Zimmerman is not a scapegoat. So let us get this straight: George Zimmerman is not the victim here.
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.
Your attempt to portray George Zimmerman as the victim is, on balance in consideration of the evidence you've offered, neither suggestive or indicative of your overt racism, but, rather, conclusive.
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.
No, Geoff. I suppose it's kind of a tough difference for racists to understand, but I'm arguing for his guilt on the evidence available to us
- that being, for your argument -
the basis of the observable crime-and-punishment data in our society.
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

, 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.