The Sideshow Continues
GeoffP said:
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 would point out that you don't get to come out swinging and then complain that I'm not handling you with kid gloves, but it's not like the obvious has ever stopped you before.
where exactly did I defend the racism of self-defense outcomes?
Well, to be honest, I thought the quoted portion would have been sufficient, but let us review:
"Ding ding. First the topic, then the excuse. No, it isn't so, Geoff! But let me reiterate what I just said about social justice! Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes. My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for. I'm more concerned with the probability of his guilt than whether he's the goat the narrative demands. He might be, but maybe you should be concerned about that too. Are you focused on this case because of its prominence? Because of the detail involved (such as it is)? Are there no other cases that might make this argument for you?"
Yeah, you see why I quoted just the two sentences? That whole paragraph is a stupid mess.
But we can go with more than the two sentences in order to make the point a little more clearly:
"Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes. My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for."
The boldfaced portion is where you run into the problem, though that next sentence is also telling.
But yes, there are societal differences. And that's
part of the problem.
And that you made that defense of the outcomes while refusing to answer an unambiguous question doesn't really help, either.
In the end, though, dismissing the problem because it is the problem is a pretty half-witted defense, so I'll happily give you whatever credit you think you're due for discrediting racism so aptly.
You have left aside writing skills with all reasonability at this point, and are engaging in mindless character attacks.
You would prefer that I be more euphemistic?
Very well.
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.
And I have come to expect your windmills. Tilt away. Like I said, I'm happy to let you discredit racism with this half-assed, ill-conceived, pantomime.
In fact, that part of the conversation went like this:
And in the trial, the transcript of the question does not adequately express investigator Chris Serino's disbelief when asked the question:
O'MARA: My question a little while ago was whether or not you have any evidence to support any contention that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to. Do you have any evidence to support that?
CHRIS SERINO, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR: I would answer I information yes, that there was just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after his conversation. That's my interpretation. There was some following.
(qtd. in Sharpton)
My problem with this point of your argument is that it ignores over a year of public discourse; there are reasons people suspect Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. Some of this is about the point Serino made, about the location of Trayvon Martin's body. And some of that is that we have never known, exactly, because George Zimmerman cannot or will not tell us, what route he took in pursuit of Trayvon Martin. And, of course, it's only made harder by the fact that this resident of the community and would-be watch captain apparently doesn't know the names of the streets in the community he is patrolling. But either George Zimmerman is really, really fast, or he took a "long" route back to his truck. I suppose, though, he has the defense of not knowing where he was in the neighborhood he lives in and patrols with a lethal weapon at his side. Indeed, click the link, watch the video; you only have to put up with Sharpton for a few seconds to get to Serino's part in that segment of the show. Serino appears to be like many other people in the Zimmerman/Martin discussion: He is surprised at the question. It's almost like having a discussion with some people at Sciforums; I would guess he expected questions about how he established his recorded interpretation—you know, back when the shooting happened, and Serino filed a report recommending probable cause for arrest.
Zimmerman gets the presumption of innocence. But he is also unreliable, and the only way that presumption of innocence holds is if one ignores that unreliability.
Starting with that presumption of innocence is appropriate. However, your apparent lack of awareness of what people have been discussing for the last fifteen months undermines any pretense of credibility about the opinions you're expressing.
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 put these two together because they reflect the inherent racism of your argument.
We'll approach that point from three directions:
•
Robin D. G. Kelley, currently the Nash Professor of American History at UCLA notes in his description of "how the system worked":
The NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative lobbying group responsible for drafting and pushing "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country, insist that an armed citizenry is the only effective defense against imminent threats, assailants, and predators.
But when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, teenage pedestrian returning home one rainy February evening from a neighborhood convenience store, the NRA went mute. Neither NRA officials nor the pro-gun wing of the Republican Party argued that had Trayvon Martin been armed, he would be alive today. The basic facts are indisputable: Martin was on his way home when Zimmerman began to follow him—first in his SUV, and then on foot. Zimmerman told the police he had been following this "suspicious-looking" young man. Martin knew he was being followed and told his friend, Rachel Jeantel, that the man might be some kind of sexual predator. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other, a fight ensued, and in the struggle Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman pursued Martin. This is a fact. Martin could have run, I suppose, but every black man knows that unless you're on a field, a track, or a basketball court, running is suspicious and could get you a bullet in the back. The other option was to ask this stranger what he was doing, but confrontations can also be dangerous—especially without witnesses and without a weapon besides a cell phone and his fists. Florida law did not require Martin to retreat, though it is not clear if he had tried to retreat. He did know he was in imminent danger.
Where was the NRA on Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground? What happened to their principled position? Let's be clear: the Trayvon Martins of the world never had that right because the "ground" was never considered theirs to stand on. Unless black people could magically produce some official documentation proving that they are not burglars, rapists, drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes, intruders, they are assumed to be "up to no good."
(Boldface accent added)
•
President Obama was a bit more diplomatic about the point:
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I 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, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
• And if you need it in the form of a picture, this one has been making the rounds lately:
Your refusal to acknowledge Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground is, well what? You seem to resent the obvious, which is always an amusing spectacle to witness. So if it's not racism, why are you refusing Trayvon Martin's rights?
That this is a predictable outcome with Zimmerman's supporters is inevitable.
Okay, we get it. You're not racist. So, then, where is Martin's right to feel afraid of a mysterious guy suspiciously following him in a car and then getting out of that vehicle to
chase him on foot?
And that's where the broader statistical outcomes become extremely, vitally relevant. The outcome in Florida was generally predictable despite people's best hopes for justice.
For many of us as African-Americans, that night was a recurring nightmare driven to a horrific conclusion. It was the driving-while-black traffic stops, the "born suspect" joke that isn’t, the cost of being black in a nation that considers black the natural color of criminality.
(Pitts Jr., "Zimmerman")
• • •
And if Gates looked like a lawbreaker to James Crowley, well, to me he looks like former Los Angeles Lakers star Jamaal Wilkes, pulled over because the tags on his car were "about to" expire; like clean-shaven, 6-foot-4 businessman Earl Graves Jr., detained by police searching for a mustachioed 5-foot-10 suspect; like Amadou Diallo, executed while reaching for his wallet.
And like me, with hands up and a rifle trained on my chest by an officer who later claimed he stopped me in that predominantly white neighborhood for a traffic violation.
Because I look like Henry Louis Gates, he looks like Jamaal Wilkes, and we all look like some dangerous, predatory black man intent on mayhem. So there is no shock here—only a sobering reminder that the old canard is, at some level, true. We all look alike.
(Pitts Jr., "Gates")
I would think it’s an alleged statement. I haven’t seen it, but would appreciate a link ....
Working on it. The keywords are common enough to make it hard to search through this much press.
What’s more important about that concept is whose scapegoat Zimmerman is or isn’t.
Yours, apparently, since you keep trying to frame this around scapegoating.
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.
Actually, Geoff, you've demonstrated that you have no clue what my argument is. Then again, there's nothing new under the sun.
As I've said
repeatedly, the law and justice system in Florida worked exactly as it is supposed to.
The difference Zimmerman's supporters are attempting to obscure is that between "not guilty" and "innocent". And that's what SYG laws are for. As the Attorney General said, these laws aim to fix something that isn't broken. And as I explained previously, the main difference between self-defense and SYG is that one need not actually be in danger.
What people are generally upset about is the fact that this is how it's supposed to go in Florida. George Zimmerman? Not guilty.
Marissa Alexander? Well if she had shot and killed her husband,
maybe she would have skated. Michael Dunn? One would presume he will be acquitted, except the bit about calling for pizza instead of informing police, and the lack of concern shown by his fiancee, who was present at the time, might hurt him when it comes to trial. Then again, he doesn't need to be in actual danger, he couldn't have known he actually killed anyone, as the car was speeding away as he shot it up, and nobody can prove that the dead black teenager didn't have a shotgun. It should be added, that last doesn't actually matter. Under SYG, all Dunn has to say is that he thought he saw a shotgun. Sure, he's apparently under mortal threat long enough to get into his car, open the glove box, remove the weapon, unholster it, chamber a round (
"quicker than a flash", our would-be hero boasts), and start shooting. He admits he doesn't know what he heard (i.e., threats that frightened him), but insists he saw a shotgun. I don't know whether he's playing for the dumb Negro bit suggesting someone could be stupid enough to threaten him with a shotgun and then sit there while he retrieves his handgun from the car and starts shooting, or if we're supposed to believe that Dunn was dealing with Cleveland Brown, Jr. To the other, a grand jury has indicted Dunn on First Degree Murder charges, and while this might sound like a good thing, the prosecuter has pursued, and the grand jury endorsed, a charge that will be exceptionally difficult to prove. Dunn has a pretty good chance of skating.
We'll see how this one goes.
But this is the underlying issue. These laws are inherently dangerous, and, yes, the outcomes accentuate racial issues in our society. Additionally, Zimmerman's profile of Martin was inaccurate; when you get down to the idea of recent burglaries in the neighborhood, Martin didn't fit. But he
was black. And wearing a hoodie. And that was enough to make him "suspicious".
Zimmerman screwed up, badly. But the law is designed specifically to protect people like him.
That is what people are pissed off about. Someone can make that many mistakes, kill another person, and it's all supposed to be good?
And in the aftermath, with the law having worked exactly how it's supposed to, Zimmerman's defenders are still trying to change history because they're damn well aware of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".
If Zimmerman looks like a scapegoat, it's because he's the most prominent example of what's wrong with these laws. Or, as
Ta-Nehisi Coates explained:
I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.
An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did -- buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait.
This is what the law allows and the justice system encourages in Florida.
And, yes, we see how this goes. People's outrage right now is as much about the future as about the past. And continuing with Coates:
It's worth remembering that what caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all. This case was really unique because of what happened with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.
You have argued few facts, and much background statistics until the last few posts.
It's not quite an aside, Geoff, but have you ever witnessed someone bemoaning the length of my posts?
At any rate, do you really need this discussion to jump back to square zero and start all over from the beginning? Do we really need to reenact fifteen months worth of discussion?
Tiassa, in many ways, you’re as free to hate me as much as you like.
It's not about hating you, Geoff. Indeed, I would pity you, except we moved past that long ago.
But don’t get me wrong: the facts of our discussion speak, Tiassa, and they are not singing your tune.
Shh. The maestro is decomposing.
You owe me an apology, of course, and of course none will be forthcoming.
This from one of our in-house masters of libel? Cha!
Maybe it would be more accurate to say I would pity you, except there really is no point.
I assume there will be a fair bit of screechy complaining in the mod forum ...
Actually there isn't.
... and my little bird will give me a heads-up about it (if he ever returns).
Oh, it's possible. Who knows what sweet-nothing lies your little bird whispers in your ear?
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.
I'm more worried about when you're going to bother setting a precedent for your own honesty.
But as long as you're tilting windmills and going out of your way to be provocative, don't expect to be handled with kid gloves.
____________________
Notes:
Sharpton, Al. Politics Nation. MSNBC, New York. July 2, 2013. NBCNews.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755884/vp/52379625#52379625
Kelley, Robin D. G. "The U.S. v. Trayvon Martin: How the System Worked ". The Huffington Post. July 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-d-g-kelley/nra-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin_b_3599843.html
Obama, Barack. "President Obama’s remarks on Trayvon Martin (full transcript)". The Washington Post. July 19, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story_2.html
Broward, Charles and Larry Hannan. "Michael Dunn remains adamant in police interview after killing Jordan Davis". The Florida Times-Union. April 9, 2013. Jacksonville.com. July 25, 2013. http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...t-police-interview-after-killing-jordan-davis
Occupy Posters. "The One Simple Graphic that Sums Up the Whole Problem with the Trayvon Martin Case". Daily Kos. July 23, 2013. DailyKos.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...he-Whole-Problem-with-the-Trayvon-Martin-Case
Pitts Jr., Leonard. "Zimmerman verdict leaves key question unanswered". Miami Herald. July 14, 2013. MiamiHerald.com. July 25, 2013.
—————. "The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident: Sometimes, they just don't see you". The Seattle Times. July 24, 2009. SeattleTimes.com. July 25, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2009533389_pitts26.html
Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "On the Killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman". The Atlantic. July 14, 2013. TheAtlantic.com. July 25, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/national...of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/
