The Zimmerman Verdict

[Raesvelg]

Or another study here (this one has to deal with SYG laws):

It's an interesting study, but it's far from a conclusive indictment of the castle doctrine. As it points out, justified homicides are for the most part almost invariably lumped into the general homicide category rather than being reported separately. There may well be a small statistical increase in the number of murders as a result of homeowners and others refusing to retreat, but it's difficult to tell for certain, and it may well be that functionally all of the increased homicides that they attribute to the law could be considered justified, at least to the point where any remaining homicides would be accountable within ordinary statistical variance.

Or here's another study, this one having to do with NY's "stop and frisk" which shows blacks and hispanics are FAR more frequently stopped and frisks and it vastly outweighs the demographics of the city:

The problem with that study is that it glosses over the fact that the African-American and Hispanic population of NYC commits crimes at a greatly disproportionate rate as well.

It's an unfortunate truth that the culture of the urban poor tends to predominate in the commission of felonies, and that as such policing of said culture is prudent, even when it may be considered racist.

Or drug usage vs drug arrests, whites and black use at the same amount, but blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for it:

And again, there's a problem with that analysis. It doesn't account for other factors; what else the perps were doing at the time of their arrest for marijuana possession. It fails to account for variations in usage habits; where people smoke, and most importantly, how often people smoke.

The question they used to determine usage levels was, for all intents and purposes, "Have you smoked marijuana in the past year?" For the purpose of determining usage, it's almost as useless as "Have you ever smoked marijuana?"

Or in terms of the death penalty:

Let's be honest, what we have in the case of the death penalty is a bit of a split. Some of it is almost certainly attributable to racism in some degree; if nothing else, a jury will reflect the overall population of an area, and where whites are the majority, that may well find you some sympathy in a majority-white jury if you're a white defendant.

I expect that most of it, however, is attributable to relative wealth. If you can afford a lawyer, your chances of being sentenced to death drop significantly.

or things like this (this video kinda shows sexism too >.>):

Yeeaaaah.

I have an issue with that one on the grounds that while the narrator states that both of the men are about the same age and dress about the same way, he's talking out of his ass. You can claim that they dress in a style typical of their peer group, but the black kid in the video shows up with sagging pants, the extra-long t-shirt, and the sideways cap. The problem there is that that style of dress is popularized by an urban black culture that has a tendency to glorify crime. The white guy definitely looks noticeably older, to boot, which is not an insignificant factor in how people respond to you.

And while I'm certain that there's a definite degree of racial bias inherent in people's reactions there, it's significant to note that it crosses racial barriers (even the African-American subjects were less likely to find the white guy suspicious), and from what was shown during the course of that video, the park in question is overwhelmingly utilized by caucasians. It would be interesting to see the same experiment repeated in a park where the racial disparity was reversed.

Or more cases like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/john-henry-spooner-guilty_n_3613457.html

I tend to classify that as more of a healthy dose of age-induced crazy than anything else. It's tragic, for certain, but I've seen too many paranoid old guys to immediately sound the racism bell.

As for this case? I agree there's not enough substantial evidence to confirm Zimmerman was a racist and that race is the cause for him tailing Trayvon, but it's not like there's evidence to say he isn't a racist either considering there are those who have come out and admitted he's made racist comments in the past.

To my knowledge, the only person who made claims of that nature was an anonymous "witness" who came forward to claim herself to be his cousin that he'd molested and that his entire family was racist.

It's significant to note that her testimony was not used in his trial. While it's unlikely that her claims of molestation could have been used as evidence, any substantive claims of racism on his part by her almost certainly would have been; the fact that it was not is rather damning.

Furthermore, I'd say the problem is even deeper than that and more likely having to do with poverty and education.

I believe the appropriate response here is "duh."

The education problem, however, has little to do with the quality of schooling, and considerably more to do with the underlying culture of the students themselves. The purported decline in public schooling has little to do with methods and funding, and vastly more to do with parental involvement. The methods of teaching, however, have done nothing but progress by the standards of the average person decrying the decline of public education, and the United States spends more per student than almost any other country in the world.

What you run into as an educator, however, are students whose parents are uninvolved in their child's education. If you're lucky, they might at least attempt to enforce some measure of discipline, but these typically aren't families where the parents and children read together at night, for example, or where parents or guardians are available to help kids with their homework, or where the extended social environment is supportive of the concept of education in general.

On a similar topic, it's why I support helping to build up Afghanistan and Iraq. Staying to help build their infrastructure and their education and such things. It's what we did in Germany and Japan and it's not like they didn't have insurgents too.

By the standards we currently use to measure insurgency, no, Germany and Japan did not have insurgents. They had a few hold-outs, to be sure, but for the most part people were just grateful that the war was over. Unlike Afghanistan, Germany and Japan both had functioning governments at the end of the war; Afghanistan has been in a state of anarchy for decades. Unlike Iraq, there weren't massive sectarian issues bubbling under the surface suppressed only by a ruthless dictator.

The situations are in no way analogous.

Which is not to say that I don't support rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. I just didn't support the way it's been handled, or the level of involvement the US took in either affair.

And now Germany and Japan are two of our close allies and two very economically stable world powers. It's also why I think people believe Islam is a "violent religion" when really the religious texts are no more violent than the other Abrahamic religions. It's just that many Islamic nations are poorer and don't have as much education for their people that leads to such problems.

The problem with Islam in terms of how it relates to the rest of the world is that whereas Christianity has a definitively passive role (albeit one oft perverted by the church), Islam is burdened with scriptures that define their relationship with other religions.

Judaism has always been an exclusive religion, so I'm going to ignore them for our purposes here.

Regardless, Islam's prescribed approach for dealing with other groups has basically been a matter of conversion, or second-class citizenship. While by the standards of the middle ages the latter was incredibly progressive, when you codify it into your religion you're going to be perpetually burdened by people who refuse to adapt said religion to the modern world. To make things even more complicated, Islam's stance on apostasy has typically been... well... "death to the apostate."

In short, part of the reason that Islam has a greater tendency towards radicalism is because it's structured to generate that sort of response. You have an awful lot of specific instructions, handed down by Mohammed and other luminaries, and that makes things... messy.

 

[Thelona]

but it's not like there's evidence to say he isn't a racist either

Actually there's quite a bit of evidence, He had a black girlfriend whom he took to the prom, he took up a protest against a local police department after a homeless african-american man was beaten by police, and he's done mentoring work for poor children many of whom were african-american, there's plenty of evidence, its just been ignored by most media and people determined to paint him as a monster because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Xalioniaf]

I didn't really pay too much attention to the trial, mostly because early on in the coverage I was watching something on one of those midget TVs at the gym and the newscaster referred to Zimmerman as a "white-hispanic".

Yeah, okay.

Shame about a child murderer being found innocent, though. Can't they still tag him in civil court?

 

[Raesvelg]

Shame about a child murderer being found innocent, though. Can't they still tag him in civil court?

They can try, but if you leave aside the prospect of them getting a pretty ridiculous jury, they probably have slightly less chance of succeeding than Zimmerman would if he sued them for their son attacking him.

The criminal case jury decided that he acted in self-defense. It's unlikely that a civil case jury will find things differently. It's easier to prove responsibility in a civil case since the bar is lower, but self-defense trumps those charges too, and the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin has never been contested, merely the circumstances under which it happened.

Also think the "child murderer" label is a trifle disingenuous. The kid was 17, four inches taller than Zimmerman, and is almost undoubtedly the one who threw the first punch. If Zimmerman had been the one to die that night, you can be fairly certain that Trayvon would have been tried as an adult.

 

[Strid]

If Zimmerman had been the one to die that night, you can be fairly certain that Trayvon would have been tried as an adult.

And there wouldn't have been a stink about it either.

 

[Morcheeba]

It's strange that I keep hearing that shit, had it been the other way there wouldn't have been nearly as much coverage. Probably not. However it seems to me there is actually more coverage for Caucasian tragedy. For instance missing children, historically more Caucasian children get coverage and mass media attention than inner city black/Hispanic children. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me. I think it's sad man. Who gives a fuck what colour someones skin is, I personally think it should be covered no matter the heritage/race, especially when it's of dire importance (ie; children). Again, that's just me, and I have the bleeding heart syndrome.

 

[Raesvelg]

If Trayvon had been white, it wouldn't have been much of a media event. It's possible that they could have turned into a gun control rallying cry, but considerably less likely. If Zimmerman had been black, same situation.

Where people start wildly speculating is that if Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman wouldn't have pursued him. To be honest, I don't think it would have changed a thing.

 

[Morcheeba]

if Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman wouldn't have pursued him. To be honest, I don't think it would have changed a thing.

Either do I because the only profiling I think Zimmerman did was based on his attire and assumed age.

 

[Raesvelg]

Oh, I think he profiled him, in the sense that "some young black males wearing hoodies have been burglarizing/invading homes in the neighborhood", because, well, that happened. But under the circumstances I expect he would have been suspicious of a young white male given what he perceived as erratic behavior on Trayvon's part.

 

[Elemmire]

is almost undoubtedly the one who threw the first punch.

Other than based on Zimmerman's testimony alone, where's the other evidence that removes doubt?

 

[Ecks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Anyone seen this yet? Sounds about right. Yup. Leaving that here.

 

[Raesvelg]

Other than based on Zimmerman's testimony alone, where's the other evidence that removes doubt?

Bear in mind that what I stated was "almost undoubtedly". Note the qualifier.

But as for evidence that indicates that Martin threw the first punch, it's varied, most discerned through deductive reasoning.

To begin:

Zimmerman has no incentive to initiate a fistfight with what he likely perceived as a larger opponent. He's carrying a gun, after all. His intent is to either follow or apprehend Martin; a fistfight serves neither of these purposes.

Martin decides to turn around and initiate a confrontation. In that action, we get a glimpse of his state of mind: confrontational.

Martin bears no wounds save the bruises and scrapes on his knuckles and the gunshot wound to his chest.

To compound on Martin's lack of wounds, the guy who receives the first punch is fairly likely to get hit by it, particularly if there's no buildup to violence in the confrontation. It's why they call it a "sucker punch".

Zimmerman's keys are found on the ground at the initial point of confrontation. If Zimmerman had been preparing to do violence, it's likely he would have put his keys away to get both his hands free, or utilize his keys as a weapon. If he's attacked, however, it's likely that he would drop his keys in order to defend himself.

And of course there's that part where, in an interview with the Huffington Post, even the star witness for the prosecution Rachel Jeantel stated that she believed Trayvon hit first.