Contributors

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Not Standing Your Ground

I've had several requests to comment on the Trayvon Martin case. Fortunately, Neil Boortz pretty much sums up how I feel. 

Trayvon Martin’s family says that they don’t believe that their son would have been killed if it were not for the color of his skin. I believe they’re right.

The Grand Jury will convene on April 10th to consider this case. I feel it is likely that charges will be brought against Zimmerman, as they should be. He should not be able to use Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute as a defense. You are not “standing your ground” when you are pursuing someone.

And what about the charge of racism?

The more likely scenario here is one of pure prejudice. George Zimmerman saw a young black male in his neighborhood at night, and immediately pre-judged the situation, coming to the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was up to no good.

The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that. This doesn't even include the likely mental disability that Zimmerman has and his several dozen calls to 911 which ended in false alarms.

In addition, how is it that someone who was convicted of assault (then scrubbed from his record) was able to get a firearm?


34 comments:

juris imprudent said...

There is no excuse for what Zimmerman did, nor are 'lax' gun laws or "stand your ground" to blame. And before you go playing the race card, take a good look at Zimmerman - he is hispanic, not some raging aryan asshole.

GuardDuck said...

juris:

There is no excuse for what Zimmerman did

Hold on. What exactly did he do that there is no excuse for?


Mark:

He should not be able to use Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute as a defense

Not applicable, as juris said.

You are not “standing your ground” when you are pursuing someone.

And even without a stand your ground law once one is on their back with someone on top of them striking them there is no further 'duty to retreat' as that is impossible at that point.


The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that.

Funny how you can divine the inner workings of a persons mind while at the same time second guessing the real time observations of that person.

The 'simple fact' is you don't have any facts to base this statement on. This whole statement is nothing more than the same prejudice that you accuse Zimmerman of.


The 'simple fact' is that this case hinges on what happened immediately before and during the physical conflict. The simple fact is we don't know that.

Mark Ward said...

juris, I like the way Boortz differentiated between racism and prejudice. That's pretty much where I'm at.

Guard Duck, my basis for what Zimmerman was thinking is based on the 911 call and the dozens of times he's called in to the police. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator.

juris imprudent said...

GD: What exactly did he do that there is no excuse for?

Acting like a cop - a bad cop. Defending yourself is not chasing someone down, as by all accounts he did. I don't believe there was a reasonable threat presented to him - other than one he created and that does not justify his use of deadly force.

GuardDuck said...

Guard Duck, my basis for what Zimmerman was thinking is based on the 911 call and the dozens of times he's called in to the police. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator.

What part of the 911 call Mark? And what of the 'dozens' of calls to 911 makes you believe he is prejudicial? I haven't seen it - elucidate please.

Acting like a cop - a bad cop. Defending yourself is not chasing someone down, as by all accounts he did. I don't believe there was a reasonable threat presented to him - other than one he created and that does not justify his use of deadly force.

OK juris. From what I can determine - the best we can call with any level of confidence is this:

1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.

2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.

3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.

4. ???

5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman shoots Martin.

The entire case turns on what happened in the ???

All that matters is what happened during the mysterious "???" of Step 4.

And that's the whole of the case right there: Did Martin turn around and launch the ass-beating on Zimmerman out of the blue? Or did Zimmerman grab Martin in an attempt to detain him and get his ass beaten for doing so, because Martin had no duty to retreat, either?


And we just don't know the answer to that yet.

juris imprudent said...

GD, I still say Zimmerman created a bad situation. According to the 911 call he was advised to not pursue the person on foot. Since there was no evidence of a crime in progress, he had no reason to do that. Since he was in effect the aggressor, he loses the benefit of the doubt. The PD there did a miserable job of investigation. Why they were so sloppy is an open question.

GuardDuck said...

According to the 911 call he was advised to not pursue the person on foot.

Well, first - was he 'pursuing'? Or was he 'following'? Or was he 'keeping an eye on'? Or was he 'getting an address for the police'? Or was he 'walking in a public space that he had every right to be in'?

Second - advised is not ordered (and the dispatcher does not have the authority to 'order' such a thing anyway). Plus, from what I recall the actual words of the dispatcher was 'that isn't necessary'. That's pretty far from advice or an order.

Since there was no evidence of a crime in progress, he had no reason to do that

Again, that's presupposing that he was actually 'pursuing'. But, for arguments sake let's take this to reductio ad absurdum levels.

If you were the neighborhood watch for your neighborhood (or you were being a good neighbor or a diligent member of the civitas) and while driving towards your house you saw a person that appeared suspicious....

by your argument you couldn't stop or follow or even look twice at him because there is no evidence of a crime and hence 'no reason to do that'. But that wouldn't be correct would it?

Since he was in effect the aggressor

Is he? Even if he did follow Martin - so what? There needs to be some other action to make that an aggressive act - otherwise you wouldn't be able to walk down the sidewalk in the same direction and vicinity as other people.

The PD there did a miserable job of investigation.

I don't think we've been privy to enough of that investigation to make that call. I also think we've be subjected to way too rumor mongering as well.

rld said...

Lots of people need to remember to let the facts come out before they lead people out into the streets. Remember the duke lacrosse players.

sw said...

people are too emotional now. theyll calm down and the facts will come out and theyll settle down.

juris imprudent said...

Julian Sanchez has some very level headed discussion of this on his blog, and a more charitable (to Zimmerman) take on how this might have happened (more Greek tragedy than cheap melodrama).

I still view - initially at least - Zimmerman as having too much of a cop attitude (without the training or the badge). And I don't always have that favorable a view of cops (as in the Guerena case). I of course have even less tolerance for idiots that throw the race card or 'lax gun laws' as the issue.

GuardDuck said...

Mark?????


Guard Duck, my basis for what Zimmerman was thinking is based on the 911 call and the dozens of times he's called in to the police. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator.

What part of the 911 call Mark? And what of the 'dozens' of calls to 911 makes you believe he is prejudicial? I haven't seen it - elucidate please.

Are you still sticking to this? Can you explain?

rld said...

I'm still surprised Markadelphia didn't fly off the handle immediately and blame the whole right wing like he usually does in situations like this.

Mark Ward said...

Well, to be honest with you guys, juris is saying all the things I would say so I feel redundant.

But, because Guard Duck asked, I will add that the transcripts of the 911 call

(http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html)

show that he was asked not to pursue Martin and did so anyway. The "these assholes always get away" line show that he was itching to follow him and then did so. He admitted it. There's no excuse for that because he's not a cop. They asked him to wait and he didn't. I'm not blaming the stand your ground law. I'm simply saying that since he was following Martin, there was no ground to stand on. Zimmerman put himself in harm's way because, as juris notes, " Defending yourself is not chasing someone down, as by all accounts he did. I don't believe there was a reasonable threat presented to him - other than one he created and that does not justify his use of deadly force."

GuardDuck said...

That's a nice answer Mark. Answer to what I don't know because it isn't an answer to the question I asked you.

You said "The simple fact that he was a black youth wearing a hoodie immediately put Zimmerman into perceptual bias mode and that was that."

I said "Funny how you can divine the inner workings of a persons mind"

You said "my basis for what Zimmerman was thinking is based on the 911 call and the dozens of times he's called in to the police. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator."

I asked "What part of the 911 call Mark? And what of the 'dozens' of calls to 911 makes you believe he is prejudicial? I haven't seen it - elucidate please."

So again - what is it you read that made you think that Zimmerman "saw black youth wearing a hoodie" that made him biased?

Mark Ward said...

The "these assholes always get away" remark" which I already answered above. If you don't like my answer, there's not much I can do about it. Your slipping into Mark-Obsesso land again, GD.

GuardDuck said...

Leave out the bullshit alright??

'These assholes' do not equal 'black youth hoodie' bias.

I refer to a lot of white people as assholes - that doesn't equal 'black youth hoodie' bias either.


You made a very specific accusation that Zimmerman was acting upon racial bias - 'these assholes' does not meet any objective criterion to support that.

This isn't Mark-Obsesso - this is asking you to support your accusation. Support it or retract it.

jeff c. said...

For Guard Duck,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/30/scarborough_the_right_is_politicizing_trayvon_martins_death.html

Mark Ward said...

Not racial bias, GD, prejudice. Did you read the Boorz article? There is a difference.

So, no, I'm not going to retract anything because if you listen to the call and read the transcript, it's obvious that he pre-judged the situation just as Boortz described.

What do you think happened and why? Not a cut and past job from a right wing blog. YOUR opinion. The recent video of Zimmerman's arrest brings into question the "ass beating" part of the equation.

I know that I'm treading on sacred ground here and props out to juris for standing up to what was predictably going to be the narrative but c'mon, GD, stop being so fucking obvious.

Mark Ward said...

Jeff, was writing when you posted. Very good link...just saw it.

juris imprudent said...

Thanks M, I hope you are being as open-minded. I currently believe Zimmerman was at fault, but it is possible he isn't.

On a related note, you do recall how you foamed at the mouth about the Hutaree? You care to reconsider that now?

GuardDuck said...

Not racial bias, GD, prejudice

They are synonyms Mark, sheesh. (plus you yourself termed it that - "perceptual bias mode" ring a bell?)

Yea, I read the Boortz column. Two things stand out to me about both the Boortz piece and your comments. While both of you claim it's not racial, neither of you offer any evidence to what the supposed prejudice is then based upon. Further, what is glaringly obvious is that both of you prominently state the race of Martin. Boortz says Martin wouldn't have been killed if he wasn't black. Your only claim as to the reason Zimmerman was interested in Martin is because he was "a black youth wearing a hoodie".

While the both of you claim it wasn't racial, race is the only specific reason either of you offer.


What do you think happened and why?

I don't speculate, Mark. But I do know that I've been involved in shooting investigations and I can tell you that the truth and what is reported by the media are usually not anywhere near the same story.

But it seems that one of your big sticking points is that Zimmerman followed Martin and is therefore somehow responsible. If one is to be a good witness, one has to actually - you know - witness stuff. Sometimes the stuff you are witnessing moves and that necessitates you moving in order to continue to witness it. That does not equate a pursuit. I am not suggesting Zimmerman actually did either course - as we just don't know, but while I am apparently capable of seeing either event - you have evidently already decided what happened.

The recent video of Zimmerman's arrest brings into question the "ass beating" part of the equation.

Really? You think so? The video was not only not high enough quality to see much, but actual 'ass beating' 'camera visible' injury is not a prerequisite to being in fear of your life.

Mark Ward said...

On a related note, you do recall how you foamed at the mouth about the Hutaree? You care to reconsider that now?

Fill me on the latest, juris. I haven't been following it.

They are synonyms Mark, sheesh.

No, they aren't. Being a racist means that you think an entire race is inferior because of their ethnicity. Being prejudiced means that you are pre-judging a situation that results in a culture bias. I don't think Zimmerman thinks blacks are inferior.

can tell you that the truth and what is reported by the media are usually not anywhere near the same story.

That's probably the case.

but actual 'ass beating' 'camera visible' injury is not a prerequisite to being in fear of your life.

It's my understanding that Zimmerman claimed to have been severely beaten in the nose. If that was the case, even the low quality video would have shown that.

juris imprudent said...

Fill me on the latest, juris. I haven't been following it.

Neither have I, but this was breaking news...

Right
Center
Left

Read all three to shake out bias and/or laziness in reporting.

GuardDuck said...

No, they aren't. Being a racist means that you think an entire race is inferior because of their ethnicity. Being prejudiced means that you are pre-judging a situation that results in a culture bias. I don't think Zimmerman thinks blacks are inferior.


Dude - you need to read what is posted - really.

NOWHERE - NO FUCKING WHERE - did I imply that YOU said Zimmerman was racist. I don't know where you are getting that. What I am asking is WHAT FUCKING THING MAKES YOU THINK HE WAS PREJUDICIAL? YOU have based that prejudice on race - I want to know where you are getting that idea.

Really Mark, if you can't comprehend simple English language you really ought to consider a change in careers.


It's my understanding that Zimmerman claimed to have been severely beaten in the nose

Your understanding is incorrect.

Mark Ward said...

did I imply that YOU said Zimmerman was racist.

Well, that's a relief.

WHAT FUCKING THING MAKES YOU THINK HE WAS PREJUDICIAL?

I already answered that. It's really a shame that you don't like it.

The likely problem here is that you're touchy about this because...well...I'm wondering how you would react if you saw a young, black youth walking around in a hoodie. What would your immediate thought be? Would you pre-judge? I see kids like this everyday at school so it means nothing to me.

The other thing you should consider is this (and be honest in your answer). What if Zimmerman was black and Martin was not? How do you think this would have played out? In other words, I'm wondering what the reaction from you...from others on the right...from people in general...would have been if a black neighborhood watch guy shot a white or other colored person with fucking Skittles and claimed he was standing his ground in defense after being attacked.

GuardDuck said...

No Mark,

The problem here is YOU are reading way more into my question than I am asking.

I already answered that. It's really a shame that you don't like it.

You haven't answered it, so there is no answer here for me not to like. Saying - It's in the transcripts is not an answer.

The question is exactly what in the 911 transcripts and his repeated calls to 911 lead you to believe Zimmerman 'saw a black youth in a hoodie' and 'went into perpetual bias mode'.

That should be an REALLY easy question to answer.

You simply say -

These quotes "________" "_______" show that Zimmerman saw a black youth in a hoodie.



And these quotes "________" "_________" "__________" plus this "________" documented activity would lead a reasonable person to believe that his reaction to that is biased.

The rest of your post is reaching a bit - MY REACTION? My reaction to the shooting is to wait and see what the REAL facts are. MY REACTION to the shooting is to comment to people who jump to conclusions based upon inaccurate or incomplete information. MY REACTION is to educate people who base their judgement on a wrong understanding of use of force law.

Mark Ward said...

You haven't answered it

And here we go again with the batshit stuff...ah well, it's spring break so what the fuck?

From above...

you asked...

What part of the 911 call Mark? And what of the 'dozens' of calls to 911 makes you believe he is prejudicial? I haven't seen it - elucidate please.

I answered...

because Guard Duck asked, I will add that the transcripts of the 911 call

(http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html)

show that he was asked not to pursue Martin and did so anyway. The "these assholes always get away" line show that he was itching to follow him and then did so.


You asked again...

what is it you read that made you think that Zimmerman "saw black youth wearing a hoodie" that made him biased?

and I answered again...

The "these assholes always get away" remark" which I already answered above.

You then said...

'These assholes' do not equal 'black youth hoodie' bias.

and then I said...

So, no, I'm not going to retract anything because if you listen to the call and read the transcript, it's obvious that he pre-judged the situation just as Boortz described.

Seeing a black youth in a hoodie and muttering "these assholes always get away" says to me that he was prejudging the situation. Again, if you don't like my answer, oh well. I'm simply offering an opinion and echoing what Boortz had to say. As usual, though, I'm not the problem here.

The problem is that you aren't admitting what YOU would think if you say a black youth in a hoodie. What's the first thought that comes into your head? Be honest. And while you're at it, answer the rest of my questions above. I'm done with the "Colonoscopy of Mark" BS.

GuardDuck said...

Mark - as I said 'these assholes' does not = black youth in a hoodie.

You have not even shown that Zimmerman was aware that he was looking at:

A: a black person
B: a youth
or
C: a person in a hoodie

You are missing the fucking point - as usual.

SHOW that Zimmerman called 911 with the for-knowledge that the suspicious person he was reporting was:

A: a black person
B: a youth
or
C: a person in a hoodie

You can't. At best you can show that Zimmerman knew the person was wearing a hoodie.

But there is no - repeat no evidence that Zimmerman was aware of Martins age or race prior to making the 911 call. At the point he made the call he was already suspicious of Martin. That would mean he 'pre-judged' based upon things other than race, age or (possibly) clothing.

You can't or you won't answer such a simple question because your entire premise is just so much bullshit.

You either got caught in believing the falsely reported transcripts and are too embarrassed to admit that you are a fool or you are such a shill for the "racism here, racism there racism every every where" camp that you are completely unable to escape your own bias and look rationally at this.


Oh, and listen up you ignorant fuck -

IF YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THEN ANALYZING THAT STATEMENT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE - IT IS TO BE EXPECTED.

I'm tired of you claiming victim-hood status when you don't like your own posted positions analyzed. Don't like it - close your blog. Otherwise nut up.

Mark Ward said...

Do you know what cracks me up about you guys, GD? I find it continually amusing that for a group of people that generally has disdain for authority that you find it perfectly acceptable to set yourself up as an imperial force and issue edicts from a make believe throne.

To my satisfaction (and that's really all that matters), I've explained my view on what happened. It's a view that happens to be shared by Neil Boortz, a libertarian commentator (which really must suck for you:)), as well as some other folks on the right. My view, like yours and Boortz's, is an opinion and its view of a societal bias that you have yet to address.

So, your calls for me to "nut up" are a shining example of hypocrisy. Because the only one here who is being a coward is you for not being honest and reflective regarding the questions I raised above. To be honest, though, I really don't care if you answer them or not because I've more or less accomplished what I set out to do here.

jeff c. said...

Guard Duck, you seem to be operating under the assumption that this is Kevin Baker's site. It's not. It's Mark's site and what he says goes. Thank him for being as polite as he is to you when you are being a total fuck nut.

GuardDuck said...

Jeff,

I know this isn't Kevin's site, because if it were and in the unlikely event that Kevin made an accusation, point or conclusion unsupported by fact or logic and someone were to ask him how he reached that endpoint then Kevin would elaborate by presenting his argument in a logical order.

Mark doesn't do logic.

Mark says that Zimmerman saw a 'black youth in a hoodie' and became biased due to that. His 'logic' and 'facts' to back up that claim are a little fuzzy. He says, variously, that Boortz says so (irrelevant, and Boortz doesn't back up his claim either) or that Zimmermans statement of "these assholes always get away" is some sort of prima facie evidence of bias.

Now, if Mark were to actually present a structured logical argument of his case (I know, I know crazy thought) it might look something like this:

Zimmerman, while driving in his neighborhood saw a subject, later identified as Martin. Zimmerman saw that Martin was a black male, in his late teens wearing a hoodie. Zimmerman prejudged that Martin was suspicious based upon this alone and called 911. The evidence that Zimmerman based his suspicions upon Martin being a black youth in a hoodie is the later statement by Zimmerman to wit ""these assholes always get away" and that "these assholes" is common parlance for black youths in hoodies.

That, in a nutshell, is Marks argument as best as I can describe it (If Mark doesn't think this represents his view - perhaps he could have properly answered the damn questions or presented his case better) . The problem is that it just doesn't do the best job of fitting the known facts.

GuardDuck said...

Now, an unbiased logical argument may look something like this:

Zimmerman, while driving in his neighborhood saw a subject later identified as Martin. Zimmerman observed Martin from an unknown distance and elected to call 911. In his report to 911 Zimmerman stated the reason he was suspicious of Martin was that it was "raining and he’s just walking around looking about" and "he’s just staring". Zimmerman also speculates that Martin may be "on drugs or something". Absent any other facts to the contrary we have to assume that Zimmerman was reporting what he believed to the true. Also, a person walking around staring and acting in an abnormal enough manner for a reasonable to person to suspect that he may be "on drugs or something" is a legitimate reason to report that person to 911.

During the 911 call the dispatcher asked Zimmerman "OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?" Zimmerman replied "He looks black." Then the dispatcher asked "Did you see what he was wearing?" Zimmermans answer was "Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes." Later Zimmerman says "now he’s coming toward me.... And he’s a black male."

Perhaps Zimmerman did indeed know Martins race, age and clothing prior to becoming suspicious enough to call 911. But based upon the above, and actually listening to the 911 call, it appears that Zimmerman's first answer to what Martins race was is less than certain. He said "He looks black" and then later, after reporting that Martin was coming towards him, perhaps giving him a better view, he makes the more certain pronouncement "he’s a black male". If Zimmermans first report of Martins race was a concrete answer there would be no reason to repeat it. If his first answer was based on Zimmerman being less than certain then the follow up answer would fit in as a confirmation. Further, to support the possibility that Zimmerman was observing Martin from a distance enough to not have a detailed knowledge of Martin is the uncertain description of Martins clothing, "jeans or sweatpants". It would normally be expected that the difference between jeans and sweatpants would be obvious - if Zimmerman was unsure then perhaps he was far enough away to not be sure of Martins race either.

The later statement by Zimmerman that "These assholes. They always get away" could mean any number of things. Perhaps, a neighborhood watch person, who has called 911 to report suspicious people on a number of occasions only to have the suspicious person leave prior to the police arriving would refer to suspicious people as assholes and them getting away would refer to them, actually getting away. Nonetheless, this statement taken alone or in the context of the above is indicative of nothing certain, and certainly not indicative of any bias based upon Zimmerman seeing a black youth in a hoodie.

GuardDuck said...

Mark,

An imperial edict? No, just the facts of life. It's logic again, try to follow along.

You have a blog, up top you can write your fill of thoughts, opinions and conclusions.

Down below are comments. You can;
A: Disable comments
B: Moderate comments
C: Have open comments

If you disable comments your conclusions can stand in your mind forever unopposed. If you moderate comments you can delete those you just don't like. If you have open comments then you will have people who question your conclusions.

Questioning your statements and conclusions is not, as you posit 'making it about you'. It is making it about what, why or how you have concluded. There is a difference. It appears you can't recognize that.

Questioning your statements and conclusions is what will happen in the comments section, and it will continue to happen. So, if you don't like it close comments or as I said 'nut up'. That's not an order, that is simply the way it is.



view of a societal bias that you have yet to address.

Of course I hadn't answered it, because until you were able to show that societal bias is even relevant in this case it's a non sequitur.

But since you have decided, despite having no facts upon which to base your - how did you put it? - your view* on what happened I'll answer.

I've arrested many black youths who after being arrested made the claim that I was just doing 'this' because they were black. My answer to them then and to you now is - no I'm doing this because you (stole, assaulted, etc).

I don't care that they are black, only they do.

Apparently not only they, but you do as well.


*Perhaps in the future, if you are going to pronounce something that ends up being just your view, or opinion then you can clearly label it as such and make sure we know it is only your feeling without basis in other confusing things such as facts. That would save everyone a lot of trouble trying to figure out where you came to such a conclusion.

Mark Ward said...

in the unlikely event that Kevin made an accusation, point or conclusion unsupported by fact or logic and someone were to ask him how he reached that endpoint then Kevin would elaborate by presenting his argument in a logical order.

You mean like the public school system has been overrun by communists? Or that Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to take away all his guns? How about his ridiculous generalizations about liberals and progressives? Yeah, that's a whole lot o logic there, dude.

Mark doesn't do logic

It's simply amazing to me that you guys continue to describe yourselves more accurately when you speak of me. You are all about emotion, GD, not logic and you attempt to redirect from that by accusing your opponents of doing so. You spout off in as authoritative a voice as you can and play make believe that myself and other Democrats aren't logical.

In short, you make shit up.

I've arrested many black youths...

And what if the situation were reversed and Zimmerman was black and Martin was not black?