View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:56 pm



Reply to topic  [ 207 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
It is not credibly disputable that George Zimmerman willingly and without claim of legal right, pursued Trayvon Martin, and provoked the very confrontation for which he claims self-defense in having shot Martin to death. Therefore, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense presents a classic "fruit of the poisonous tree"1 case, which gives rise to a dilemma in weighing Zimmerman's rights as a criminal defendant, against public policy interests, irrespective of whether or not Zimmerman indeed did shoot in self-defense.

We know from Zimmerman's own 9-1-1 narrative, and from witnesses that heard screaming before Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range, that Zimmerman pursued and instigated a confrontation with Martin, and that he did so without either having witnessed a misdemeanor, or without having personal knowledge of specific, articulable facts that would logically lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that Martin had probably, i.e., more likely than not, committed a felony. Therefore, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was not in lawful "fresh pursuit" of Martin under statutes that authorize same for the purposes of making a citizen's arrest.

Moreover, Zimmerman had been told by the 9-1-1 dispatcher that his pursuit of Martin was unnecessary for the interests and purposes of relevant law enforcement.

Additionally, Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense by using deadly force in making a strategic attack on an aggressor who had surprised him under conditions reasonably suggestive of an ambush. Nor had he otherwise been pursued into an inescapable and threateningly vulnerable position. Nor is there any objective evidence that he was either overtly threatened by Martin, or subjected, through no fault of his own, to otherwise unreasonably threatening circumstances, where if attacked, Zimmerman would have been subjected to an imminent and unreasonable risk of harm.2

Therefore, Zimmerman's conduct vis-à-vis Martin's, was a complete and unwarranted lark of its own, and it was outside the bounds of any legal sanction.

In summation, Zimmerman engaged in wrongful, aggressive, and threatening conduct in pursuing Martin, and he did so without just cause. He further escalated the threat posed to Martin by provoking an unwarranted confrontation with him, all the while having not been in lawful "fresh pursuit" of a crime suspect at the time. Consequently, as a matter of public policy if not as a matter of venerated law, Zimmerman cannot claim self-defense in justifying having shot Martin in a situation that Zimmerman created, irrespective of Martin's conduct under the circumstances. Such is the tentative and tenuous nature of human and constitutional rights under the pall of "Stand Your Ground".

______________________________________
1. Although this search and seizure doctrine is normally associated with the admissibility of crime-related evidence as governed by the Exclusionary Rule, the analogy holds sway in "Stand Your Ground" cases as well. Insofar as public policy considerations are insinuated into the judicial process of balancing and determining the rights of the interested parties, as well as upholding the public-order prerogatives of the state, this doctrine should be given credence.

2. Notice that I did not say that under other circumstances where the roles had been reversed, that Zimmerman would have had to credibly demonstrate that he feared great bodily harm or death from Martin, particularly in order to justify an act of deadly force in self-defense. Teenagers carry guns too, and they come out of pockets and waistbands in a flash. Hence, the onus is either on the attacker who presented an imminent threat, or on his survivors, or on the prosecutor, i.e., any one of whom attempts to demonstrate that deadly force used in self-defense to repel such an attack was unjustified under the circumstances. Moreover, it is their burden to prove that the defendant who got the better of the aggressor had no reason to believe that he was threatened with any harm whatsoever. If you want to play blood sports and other dangerous games outside of the justified bounds of the law, particularly those associated with domination and dominion, you accept the risks thereof, and you don't whine to a judge and jury like a petulant, panty-waisted milksop about having gotten the short end of the deal.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
It will be interesting to see all of the facts come out in this tragic case over time. Sad to see this kids death politicized by the likes of Sharpton & Farrakahn. Thx to them 2 clowns justice may never be served.


Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
2fisted wrote:
It will be interesting to see all of the facts come out in this tragic case over time. Sad to see this kids death politicized by the likes of Sharpton & Farrakahn. Thx to them 2 clowns justice may never be served.

Indeed fisty, MSNBC has, without a doubt, fanned the flames of national hysteria. That said, there would be no grounds for same but for the perception of racial bias, favoritism and coverup based on how the Sanford PD mishandled the case, whether they were legally justified in their actions based on Zimmerman's claim of self defense under "Stand Your Ground", or not.

Based on Zimmerman's use of the expletive "fucking coon" in his conversation with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, the Sanford PD knew that, at face value, the shooting looked like a hate crime. A motive of racial bias thus supplied, and given the facts that established probable cause to believe that Zimmerman was not in "fresh pursuit" of a criminal, and knowing that Zimmerman was clearly told that his pursuit was unnecessary, the only reasonable conclusion left as to why Zimmerman continued his pursuit was that, based on the information within Sanford PD's knowledge, Zimmerman had a personal vendetta to satisfy, to wit:

    Zimmerman: "...[T]hey always get away with this stuff..."

Given all these factors that militate for handling the incident as a probable hate crime, Sanford PD should have at least detained Zimmerman at the scene until they could get all the facts from a thorough investigation of the incident, and then formally arrest and book Zimmerman. The fact that they did not suggests that they either favored Zimmerman or were protecting him. By not arresting Zimmerman, they could not take blood or urine samples to establish his sobriety or the lack thereof. Moreover, if they continued to be so confident in Zimmerman's self-defense case following his arrest, they could have let him out on a reasonable bail bond designed to assure Zimmerman's likelihood to show up for further, future proceedings.

The Grio did a reinactment of the incident based on the description available from all of the 9-1-1 tapes, which are part of the res gestae. It's clear that Martin attempted to evade Zimmerman by cutting through a housing tract where Zimmerman could not use his car to follow Martin. Zimmerman had to have gotten out of his car and deliberately pursued Martin on such a course and in such a manner that any reasonable person would conclude that the pursuit was intended not to maintain mere visual surveillance of Martin, but to engage him in a place and in a manner such that any reasonable person in Martin's position would feel threatened and targeted.

____________________________
res gestae (rayz jest-tie) n. from Latin for "things done," it means all circumstances surrounding and connected with [and which are probative articles of evidence which establish, explain and provide context for understanding the facts associated with] a happening [and how it came about]. Thus, the res gestae of a crime includes the immediate area and all occurrences and statements immediately after the crime. Statements made within the res gestae of a crime or accident may be admitted in court even though they are "hearsay" on the basis that spontaneous statements in those circumstances are reliable.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Interesting, but all sorts of news is comming out about this case and no one fully knows what happened... especialy idiots like Jesse jackson & the race baiters at msnbc who are trying to link the Ty to Rush, Santorum & a slew of other Republicans.

This case has been totaly fkd up thx to the "activist" mob, including Obama who... on cue, had to get involved.
The neighborhood where the incident happened is multiracial, only about 50% white. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, is a Hispanic who has African-American relatives and may himself be partly black. New "witnesses" are chimeing in too, sounds like the hispanic guy was getting beat up. But thats no excuse to gun a guy down out side your home.
The Florida “stand your ground” statute has little if anything to do with it also.

Lets hope that there will be a fair resolution when this finaly goes to court.


Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
2fisted wrote:
... This case has been totaly fkd up thx to the "activist" mob...
The Florida “stand your ground” statute has little if anything to do with it also.

Activist mob is right, but that goes for both sides. What pisses me off is that MSNBC is on a crusade to get a federal pre-emption of both Stand Your Ground as well as the Castle Doctrine.

To be clear, I support a modified Castle Doctrine that, under specific conditions where certain elements of circumstance have been proven, the burden of proof shifts back to the dwelling occupier to justify resorting to deadly force in protecting themselves, home and family. I do not have the same regard for "Stand Your Ground". In fact, unless SYG is curtailed to apply to a very few limited circumstances, where retreating from a threat would subject a victim to an increased disadvantage in protecting themselves, or to other risks altogether, e.g., a carjacking in a high-crime area, I cannot support it.

Ed Schultz dredged up a Wisconsin case where a young black man, Bo Morrison, was shot and killed by a neighboring homeowner after invading the homeowner's fully-enclosed, three-season porch while attempting to flee from law enforcement in the dead of night. The cops were busting an underage, open-house drinking party that Morrison had attended next door. The fool was fleeing on foot in mid February, and he got the bright idea of trying to hide in the porch of another house nearby until the heat died down. The homeowner heard the noise of an intruder and grabbed his .45 and went to investigate. He saw the kid hiding in his porch and he thought it was because the kid had intended to invade the home and cause mayhem in retaliation for the homeowner having called the police on the loud party, and was hiding in hopes of getting that opportunity. Any reasonable person who is attempting to evade a true threat is going to seek help, not try to hide from the owner of the home in which he's seeking refuge. And this is no time for a homeowner to assume unreasonable and unknowable risks by trying to play Wyatt Earp and "bring the bad guy to justice". Besides, only a gullibly credulous fool would believe that the kid was hiding ONLY from an underage drinking citation. In fact, he was not. Morrison was out on bail from four pending criminal cases, and as a condition was not to consume alcohol. An autopsy showed he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.19. So when he confronted the kid and Morrison stood up and pushed a hand out at him, the homeowner shot little Mr. Trickster f'ing dead, and, of course, was exonerated shortly thereafter.

    [Homeowner, Adam] Kind told police he thought he said something like "Who are you," or "What are you doing," and then fired a single shot after the person raised a hand and took a step forward.

    When police arrived, they found Morrison still crouched between the dresser and refrigerator, but found a bullet hole in the wall 49 inches from the floor. Morrison had been shot through the heart and lung.

    [District Attorney Mark] Bensen's analysis indicated that it wouldn't matter whether the door was locked or not, because simply opening the door would amount to a "forcible" entry by Morrison.

    Bensen also concluded that the late hour, the darkness, the expectation that the intruder had broken in through a locked door, the close quarters of the porch, and the fact that his wife and children were in the home all supported the castle doctrine's presumption that Kind acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Ed Schultz had the balls to say that the kid WAS NOT an intruder, and that the killing resulted from shooting first and asking questions later. That's just wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which is that not even a cop can be second-guessed by relevant but reasonably unknowable circumstances that are learned after the fact.

Also last night, Rachel Maddow resurrected her vendetta against 30-round "extended capacity" magazines, as if that has anything to do with Trayvon Martin's shooting. A bunch of we true 2nd Amendment patriots blasted her for it when she tried to drum up support for the McCarthy-Lautenberg bill to ban high-capacity magazines after Gabriel Giffords was shot. Unfortunately,you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The criminals who will invade your home or business will get extended capacity magazines, and many of them will be gang bangers who have both military experience, and access to illegally-modified, fully-automatic weapons.

And, of course, Larry O'Donnell doesn't think that anyone should have a handgun for self-defense, much less carry one concealed in public.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's a liberal who's more demagogic and unreasonable than a conservative. But I revel in discrediting their agenda-serving propaganda with equal relish.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
What follows is my unqualified, personal opinion based upon publicly known facts. It is not a substitute for a competent legal opinion authored by a licensed attorney. I therefore deny providing any legal advice or information herewith. I furthermore deny and disclaim any loss, costs or damages incurred on behalf of any reader hereof who either takes or does not take action based hereupon.

It's abjectly repugnant that the Sanford, FL police would attempt to impugn the reputation of Trayvon Martin, posthumously, when there is no valid reason for inquiring as to what his character or state of mind played in walking home from the 7-11 on the evening that George Zimmerman shot him to death. We know that Martin had recently purchased Skittles and iced tea, and was talking to a girlfriend on his way home. Martin's girlfriend is a res gestae* witness who can testify as to what Martin described was happening as the incident developed and culminated into a physical engagement between Zimmerman and Martin, which resulted in Martin's phone call being disconnected.

Conversely, there is every reason to inquire into George Zimmerman's character and state of mind for wrongfully and without claim of right, stalking and then provoking a confrontation with Martin. We know from an incident reconstruction that Zimmerman had to get out of his car and pursue Martin on foot for 2 blocks in order to choose the place where he could engage Martin with a minimal potential for intervention by third parties.

The Sanford, FL police supervision's first question should have been, "Why did this guy get out of his car and pursue a kid for 2 blocks through a housing tract where his car couldn't go, and then engage him in a provocative manner, and in a place where there would be no one immediately available to intervene?" The first thing police supervision should have done is have Zimmerman detained at the scene until those 9-1-1 records could be reviewed.

We know from Zimmerman's own 9-1-1 narrative, and from witnesses that heard screaming before Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range, that Zimmerman pursued and instigated a confrontation with Martin, and that he did so without either having witnessed a misdemeanor, or without having personal knowledge of specific, articulable facts that would logically lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that Martin had probably, i.e., more likely than not, committed a felony. Therefore, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was not in lawful "fresh pursuit" of Martin under statutes that authorize same for the purposes of making a citizen's arrest. Moreover, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and was not, therefore, afforded the power to "stop and frisk" based upon a reasonable suspicion pursuant to Terry v. Ohio. (See also Terry Stop for subsequent jurisprudence.)

Furthermore, Zimmerman had been told by the 9-1-1 dispatcher that his pursuit of Martin was unnecessary for the interests and purposes of relevant law enforcement. Therefore, Zimmerman's conduct vis-à-vis Martin's, was a complete and unwarranted lark of its own, and it was outside the bounds of any legal sanction. He was, in fact, a predator who was stalking Martin.

Based on Zimmerman's use of the expletive "fucking coon" in his conversation with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, the Sanford PD knew that, at face value, the shooting looked like a racially-motivated bias crime. A motive (of racial bias) thus supplied, and given the facts that established probable cause to believe that Zimmerman was not in "fresh pursuit" of a criminal, and knowing that Zimmerman was clearly told that his pursuit was unnecessary, the only reasonable conclusion left as to why Zimmerman continued his pursuit was that, based on the information within Sanford PD's knowledge, Zimmerman had a personal vendetta to satisfy, to wit:

Zimmerman: "...[T]hey always get away with this stuff..."

A timely review of those 9-1-1 records would have revealed a scenario that is factually consistent with a bias crime. Sanford PD should have at least detained Zimmerman at the scene until they could get all the facts from a thorough investigation of the incident, at which time Sanford PD would have been fully cognizant of the probable cause that they held collectively. Knowing all the above documented factors that militate for handling the incident as a probable bias crime, the police would then have been justified in formally arresting and booking Zimmerman.

Hence, incident to lawful arrest, and immediately upon taking Zimmerman into custody, the police should have had Zimmerman's claimed injuries at least examined and documented (if not treated) by proper medical authority to determine whether they were caused consistent with Zimmerman's account, which they are now leaking to the press. They also could have collected more evidence, including by way of example but not limited to Zimmerman's statement (or refusal of same), blood stains, grass stains, fingernail scrapings, saliva samples, fiber samples -- actually anything that could have transferred either between Zimmerman and Martin, or between Zimmerman and the shooting scene -- as well as pertinent blood chemistry that bears upon Zimmerman's demeanor and judgment in instigating the fateful confrontation.

The fact that the police did not arrest Zimmerman under these circumstances suggests that they either favored Zimmerman or were protecting him. They were free to collect whatever evidence supported their stance, and free not to collect that which would have been consistent with standard operating procedure with a suspect in custody. Specifically, by not arresting Zimmerman, they could not take blood or urine samples to establish his sobriety or the lack thereof.

Alternatively, if the police continued to be so confident in Zimmerman's self-defense case following his arrest and the enhanced collection of evidence facilitated thereby, they could have let him out on a reasonable bail bond designed to assure Zimmerman's likelihood to show up for further, future proceedings.

___________________________________
* res gestae (rayz jest-tie) n. from Latin for "things done," it means all circumstances surrounding and connected with [and which are probative articles of evidence which establish, explain and provide context for understanding the facts associated with] a happening [and how it came about]. Thus, the res gestae of a crime includes the immediate area and all occurrences and statements immediately after the crime. Statements made within the res gestae of a crime or accident may be admitted in court even though they are "hearsay" on the basis that spontaneous statements in those circumstances are reliable.



______________________________________
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” --Harry S. Truman

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:48 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Yea, the facts seem to be changing all the time for this incident. It's starting to look like the Duke Lacross rape case a few years ago when the story turned out to be completely wrong.
Doesn't stop Eric Hoolder buddies the Black Panthers from puting out a $ bounty on Zimmerman tho! No exploiting a kids death here!

Larry O'Donnell is a true nut job.


Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I just don't know what happened so this is a hard story to take sides on. There are differeing accounts and lots of heated emotions. I think the family of the slain wants revenge, as many families do when a loved one is killed. I don't blame them. I hope they want to pursue justice and fact instead of being blinded by a desire for revenge.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:01 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Dear Newt,

Undoubtedly, the recent Trayvon Martin shooting, and the "Stand Your Ground" statutory backdrop thereto, will generate fallout for private security officers using force, irrespective of the racial issues or other peculiarities pertinent to this fatality. In addition to the legal analysis (and associated disclaimers) of George Zimmerman's conduct that I forwarded yesterday, a few considerations specific to your "best practice" concerns come to mind. I hope you find this (more or less) extemporaneous checklist helpful; although, of course, it will need to be "tweaked" and fleshed-out appropriate to the circumstances of its intended application.

Where is the client site located in relation to commercial and community service entities? (I have a YMCA directly across the street.) If so, what are their hours of operation? If not properly dissuaded or deterred from casual trespass, you can expect people to "cut through" your property in order to access those services.

Are any of the client-site infrastructure improvements public property, or do they share an undemarcated border or other similar boundary with any of the following?

Public roadways and access points (e.g., a boat launch), golf courses, parks, hiking/biking trails, natural (i.e., public) bodies of water or other natural land formations.

Is there anything about the client's site that would cause a visitor to reasonably expect that they were either a permissive business invitee, or that they were a premises licensee with an objectively credible claim of right or easement?
Are there conspicuous warnings against solicitation for either commercial, charitable or political purposes without an express invitation and pre-clearance?

What barriers and trespass warnings provide not only sufficient notice to outsiders, but also pose an actual physical inhibition to casual trespassing, thus connoting an expectation of privacy; and, if disregarded, thus establishing a deliberate attempt to evade, subvert, or otherwise circumvent such structured access controls?
Are there notices that curfews are strictly enforced and that juveniles must be accompanied by a responsible adult; i.e., a parent, an appointed guardian, or some adult acting in their stead and with their authorization?

In controlled sites, are there protocols for identifying invited visitors in advance, e.g., centralized access and logging in/out, and a policy for escorting guests?

Is there a conspicuous intercom or courtesy phone provided at all accessible entrances with bilingual instruction for visitors to announce themselves such that a failure to use same can be reasonably deemed to be a knowing and willful disregard for site-access policies?

Are the security officers who interface with both outsiders and clients clearly identifiable as such by conspicuous uniforms or other insignia?

Are there sufficient security staff and CCTV resources for providing observation by zone, rather than by "bird-dogging", "tailing", or otherwise calling uncomfortable and unwelcome attention to an unannounced visitor by conspicuously following them?

Are there clear policies and procedures in place for guiding security officers in initiating contact with both outsiders and clients, and which stipulate the conditions under which such contacts are to be made, and the protocol expected to guide such interaction, as well as specify the requirements of follow up documentation?

See my references to "fresh Pursuit" and "Stop and Frisk" included in my analysis of the Trayvon Martin shooting emailed yesterday.

Assuming proper background screening, are security officers adequately trained (i.e., reasonably trained for the conditions of foreseeable and critical use; i.e., a situation in which a security officer might either injure or kill someone while using a weapon in an otherwise lawfully defensive manner) in the protocols of engagement, and if necessary, both the use of pursuit and the use of force authorized by law for protecting both people and property, including lethal and non-lethal methods?

Factors considered in adjudicating self-defense claims include:

Time of day of the shooting; e.g., 2 a.m. The intrusion was attempted at times and places that are so statistically infrequent with casual visitation, that the average, similarly-situated property owner would have no constructive notice of, nor any reasonable expectation of, an otherwise unannounced but benign intrusion into their premises.

Location of shooting, e.g., inside the property owner's principle operating structure.

Example: When the homeowner walked into the room, he initially did not see anyone. As he walked further in the room, he saw something out of the corner of his eye. He was startled to see someone in his house at that hour.

Compare with an out-building like a utility shed and mechanic's shop. Under most state laws the property owner cannot leave the relative safety of his principle operating structure to investigate a possible break in of the shop, and then claim self-defense in having confronted and shot an unarmed intruder found therein.

The size of room where the shooting took place; e.g., an enclosed, three-season porch measuring I I feet 3 inches by 7 feet 6 inches, which indicates that the intruder was in close proximity to the homeowner; i.e., within several feet at the time of the shooting.

Lighting conditions of room of shooting; e.g., dark (the lights had not been turned on).

The color of the clothes that the intruder was wearing; e.g., dark, thus making it harder for him to be seen.

Reason the property owner went into the room; e.g., the homeowner heard a noise and thought someone might be breaking into his house.

Protection of other people in the principle operating structure; e.g., a homeowner's wife and a total of three children under the age of l0 were inside his house.

The property owner's handgun was loaded with 6 shots and he only fired one time. The implication being that the property owner only used such force as was immediately necessary to repel a perceived attack. Having discontinued shooting, and hence, the unarmed intruder having lived until police arrived, demonstrates that the property owner did not necessarily intend to positively kill the intruder, even if the intruder ultimately dies.

An investigation reveals that the door which separates the main interior of the house to the room where the shooting occurred opens to the east - towards the direction of where the intruder was later observed by the property owner. The direction that the door swings could have obscured the property owner's vision and thus factor into why the property owner did not see the intruder when he first walked into this room.

After the property owner spoke to the intruder (who he could not clearly see), the intruder raised his hand and took a step towards the property owner.

When the property owner first encountered the intruder, the intruder stood up - another startling event.

Example: From a homeowner's perspective, someone who is crouched down and possibly hiding in one's house is potentially a greater danger than someone who is observed standing up in one's house because a homeowner has even less knowledge of what the person is doing in their home, and therefore is potentially a greater threat to a homeowner and his family.

The property owner had very little time to react to the situation due to the sudden nature of the contact with the intruder prior to the shooting.

When the property owner first walked into the room where the shooting occurred, he smelled something unusual, i.e., a wet, smoky smell, which was an unusual smell for that room, and which would have been a cause for further alarm.

The property owner believed that he locked the doors to the principle operating structure - therefore he believed that anyone in the room where the shooting occurred would have had to have broken into this structure.

At the time when the property owner fired the round at the intruder, the intruder was likely closer to the interior portion of the principal operating structure than the property owner was; e.g., a homeowner's wife and children were located in the interior portion of their residence, thus escalating the homeowner's anguish and concern for his family's safety.

The small room where the shooting occurred had many items in it, e.g., including a refrigerator, a dresser, a stand-alone freezer, a chair and a garbage can, which means that there was even less room for two adult males to be in.

The property owner never met the intruder, and he never invited anyone to come to his principle operating structure in any reasonable relation to the time and date of the shooting.

Where additional protections are sought in states that recognize the "Castle Doctrine", the following additional factors, which are included here by way of example but are not limited to the following, apply:

In order for the Castle Doctrine to apply in any case, a seven part test must be met.

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle or place of business.

2. The person against whom the force was used must have unlawfully entered the dwelling.

The intruder must not have been invited.

Nor by objective reference to a custom, habit or practice with the structure in question, could the intruder reasonably believe that they would be welcome under the circumstances.

Nor could the intruder reasonably expect that they were either a permissive business invitee, or that they were a premises licensee with an objectively credible claim of right or easement.

Example: The intruder had never been invited to come into the principal operating structure, and he did not know the property owner. At a minimum, therefore, at 2:00 a.m., he was trespassing, and was, consequently, inside the structure unlawfully.

Therefore, in summation, the intruder must not have objectively held a reasonable belief that they had permission to be in the property owner's principle operating structure on the date and time in question.

3. The person against whom the force was used must have forcibly entered the dwelling (see #21 below).

4. The actor was present in the dwelling at the time of the incident.

5. The actor knew or reasonably believed that the person against whom the force was used had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling.

6. The actor was not engaged in criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling to further criminal activity at the time.

7. The actor against whom the force was used was NOT a public safety worker.

In states that require a person claiming self-defense to have first attempted to retreat, i.e., where and when possible and practicable, there can be no indication that the property owner either provoked, instigated, coerced, tricked, lured, or otherwise induced the intruder into such a place as where retreat therefrom is neither legally required, nor expected under the circumstances. In other words, no artifice may be devised in order to justify shooting either an intruder, or any other person with whom the property owner is either in a dispute with, or against whom he otherwise harbors malice, in order to avail himself of the protections of self-defense.

The person against whom the force was used must have unlawfully entered the structure (see #18 above).

The person against whom the force was used must have forcibly entered the structure.

It should also be noted that the Wisconsin common law has indicated that an entry into a building, permission by which was obtained by fraud, is deemed a "forcible" breaking though accompanied by no actual force or violence. See Walton v. State 64 Wis. 3nd 36, 41 (1974), which discusses State v. Lewis 113 Wis. 39l, 89 N.W. 143 (1902). If entry into a building by fraud is deemed a "forcible" entry, then certainly an unlawful entry into a residence at 2 a.m., by opening two doors, would be considered a "forcible" entry.

The property owner had absolutely no idea who could possibly have been inside his principle operating structure at 2 a.m.

The property owner indicated that after hearing the sound from the back of his principal operating structure, he was concerned that someone may be trying to enter same, so he went to his closet and removed his handgun which was secured in a plastic case with snaps on the top shelf. He opened the case, loaded the handgun with six rounds and went to check his structure. It is reasonable to believe that a person who goes through the steps of obtaining a handgun and loading it, after hearing a noise coming from the back of his structure, was afraid for his safety and for that of others who were in his principle operating structure, and who depended upon him for their safety until police arrived.

The property owner was not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. The property owner's blood result indicated that he had no ethanol/alcohol in his system. Therefore, the property owner was thinking as clearly as he could under the circumstances; i.e., having been awoken at 2 am.
After the shooting, several of the actions of the property owner also indicate that the property owner acted lawfully in self defense. These include:

After the property owner fired the single shot, he asked his wife to immediately call 911 and within minutes officers were on scene.

The property owner cooperated in all aspects of the investigation including submission to a blood test and providing voluntary statements to law enforcement officers about the shooting.

Neither the property owner nor his wife showed any signs of deception when they voluntarily provided statements to law enforcement officers.

When officers arrived on scene, the property owner appeared to be in a state of disbelief or shock.

The property owner was not engaged in criminal activity, nor were they using his or her structure to further criminal activity at the time.

The property owner is a law abiding citizen with no prior criminal record.

Are security officers adequately trained in the protocols for tactically deploying personal defense weapons, e.g., pepper spray, PR-24's, stun guns, Tasers, and firearms, including the reporting of the deployment of same, and complying with whatever statutory requirements exist to compel providing first aid to injured parties?


Best wishes for your "best practices",

Cranky-'n-Crusty

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
That post hurt my eyes Cranky... do I have grounds to sue you now? :lol:

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:02 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I've always thought a good guideline for how long your post should be in these things is whether you could say it to someone in real life, through speech, and they'd still stay in the room. I mean a normal room, not a courtroom or lecture hall.


Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:07 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
hes a lawyer, he gets paid for each obfuscating, unnecessary word.

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:16 pm
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I think CC's post is a good case study to get the death penalty enacted here in MN. Minnesoatans realy need to get out of the dark ages when it comes to crime & punishment.


Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
2fisted wrote:
I think CC's post is a good case study to get the death penalty enacted here in MN. Minnesoatans realy need to get out of the dark ages when it comes to crime & punishment.


They didn't have the death penalty in the dark ages?


Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I think he means he wants to bring back torture. He thinks it's like fake-dungeon nite at the local disco.


Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
I think he means he wants to bring back torture. He thinks it's like fake-dungeon nite at the local disco.


Wouldn't that mean we'd be "going into" the dark ages then?


Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
I've always thought a good guideline for how long your post should be in these things is whether you could say it to someone in real life, through speech, and they'd still stay in the room. I mean a normal room, not a courtroom or lecture hall.



That's a pretty good guideline, but I've been known to be a little wordy at times too so I guess I can't say much. I think he often has good points buried in his posts, but I'd like him to learn to paraphrase.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:15 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
That's a pretty good guideline, but I've been known to be a little wordy at times too so I guess I can't say much. I think he often has good points buried in his posts, but I'd like him to learn to paraphrase.


I have been too, though it's usually when I do in-line responses to quoted posts. Some people don't like that, but I think it's clearer. Anyway, I agree about Cranky.


Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4917
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
He's just Cranky because unlike his forum posts, his career in bumper-sticker writing was brief and ended abruptly.
I prefer not to speculate on why he's Crusty...


Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7271&p=102973#p102973

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
zom-zom wrote:
I think he means he wants to bring back torture. He thinks it's like fake-dungeon nite at the local disco.


Wouldn't that mean we'd be "going into" the dark ages then?


You must be thinking of the "Renaissance"? Ahh... good times... good times.

I realy doubt that this exploited incident will have a negative effect on "Stand your ground" laws at all CC. More likely it will have the opposite effect thx to the national attn of the other murders in Fla. that are typically ignored by the media.
And when you have out spoken celeberties, the grievance industry (Jesse Jacson ect..) & our president saying nothing as the Black Panthers put out a bounty on a Hispanic Democrat over a fuzzy incident... people just become MORE divided & more inclined to want to get a gun & protect themselves.

The gun industry is booming, more Castle laws will pass nation wide, in a way you can thank Alinsky?


Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
2fisted wrote:
I realy doubt that this exploited incident will have a negative effect on "Stand your ground" laws at all CC. More likely it will have the opposite effect thx to the national attn of the other murders in Fla. that are typically ignored by the media.
And when you have out spoken celeberties, the grievance industry (Jesse Jacson ect..) & our president saying nothing as the Black Panthers put out a bounty on a Hispanic Democrat over a fuzzy incident... people just become MORE divided & more inclined to want to get a gun & protect themselves.

The gun industry is booming, more Castle laws will pass nation wide, in a way you can thank Alinsky?

I disagree re "Stand Your Ground". As a concealed-carry permit holder, I hope this excuse to play Wyatt Earp and commit murder while living out one's vigilante fantasies is buried with a stake through its heart; i.e., by pre-emptive federal legislation. While I'm on the subject, I'm tickled pink that the latest MN legislative folly went down like Custer's Last Stand. That kind of crap should stay dead along with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Now with the Trayvon Martin tragedy, SYG is sure to never pass in MN. Good riddance.

On a parallel topic, reciprocity with states that require no concealed-carry training, and marginal screening, e.g., Arizona, is an invitation to relitigate the shoot out at the O.K. Corral. And right-v.-left-wing hysteria is not a reason to indulge such barbaric sensibilities.

Conversely, I don't see the Castle Doctrine being affected by the Trayvon Martin shooting nearly as much, except in really liberal states like Oregon and Massachusetts. As I mentioned earlier, Ed Schultz took a stab at it with the Bo Morrison case in Slinger, WI, last Friday night, but he's never mentioned it since, and for good reason. As you know from this thread, I generally support the Castle Doctrine, but only under the qualifying conditions that I enumerated below.

As far as getting a gun to protect oneself, unless a full-fledged race riot ensues from all the ridiculous demagogic pandering and media hype that both MSNBC and FAUX NOISE seem to be insatiably glutting themselves with, I doubt that Trayvon Martin's shooting will carry much weight. What people are anxious about is a breakdown in public order; i.e., the kind of civil disorganization occasioned by a virulent pandemic like the Spanish flu of 1918, another natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, or a complete economic meltdown, which, according to the ECRI (Why Our Recession Call Stands) and the likes of Nouriel Roubini, is not an impossibility if all elements of a perfect storm converge.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:57 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
What people are anxious about is a breakdown in public order; i.e., the kind of civil disorganization occasioned by a virulent pandemic like the Spanish flu of 1918, another natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina, or a complete economic meltdown, which, according to the ECRI.. .

Tombstone is whats comming CC, chaos in the streets directed by the Fred Phelps of msnbc.

If Reps are smart they will push the SYG laws asap, especialy in poor Catholic Democrat voting blocks.


Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I'm generally opposed to federal gun laws. Best leave those laws to the individual states because we as a people vary wildly in our opinion of and uses for guns.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:17 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Having grown up with long hair and piercings, I was judged to be just like all the other people with long hair and piercings
That's OK because I never put myself in a situation where it would be to my detriment
I have been followed hundreds of times anywhere from store security to cops on the street
Every time, I smile and make eye contact, say hello and go about my lawful business
When questioned/stopped, I don't give that person attitude
I have never been shot

People need to realize that when they act and dress like a thug then they are going to be treated like one
I am not going to comment on what supposedly happened because I wasn't there
However, I am pretty sure that all of this could have been avoided if the person who dressed like a thug/gangster had acted like a normal law abiding citizen instead of an incredulous thug, outraged by "racial profiling" then this never would have happened

Nope, it's not right to be judged on your race/appearence etc...
But if you made a decision to identify yourself with a group that has a clear reputation for violent criminal behavior then you must accept the snap judgements people make about you

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:41 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Rockula! wrote:
People need to realize that when they act and dress like a thug then they are going to be treated like one
I am not going to comment on what supposedly happened because I wasn't there
However, I am pretty sure that all of this could have been avoided if the person who dressed like a thug/gangster had acted like a normal law abiding citizen instead of an incredulous thug, outraged by "racial profiling" then this never would have happened

Nope, it's not right to be judged on your race/appearence etc...
But if you made a decision to identify yourself with a group that has a clear reputation for violent criminal behavior then you must accept the snap judgements people make about you


All we have evidence for is that he dressed in a hoodie. That does not equal dressing like a thug/gangster. Although granted, it probably wasn't cold enough for a hood in Florida at the time, but still.

And your last 2 sentences are in direct conflict with each other. If it is not right to be judged by your race/appearance, then how can you say that you "must" accept the snap judgments peolpe make? So you must accept that which is not right? Hell no. What is not right is by definition that which we must not accept.

Your 1st 2 sentences conflict too. You say you're not going to comment on what happened, and then you make a wild speculation about exactly that.


Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Rockula! wrote:
People need to realize that when they act and dress like a [contraceptive-chewing slut] then they are going to be treated like one ... Nope, it's not right to be judged on your [gait]/appearence [sic] etc... But if you made a decision to identify yourself with a group that has a clear reputation for [back-alley sexual promiscuity and trysts] then you must accept the snap judgements [that latent freaks and other sexually-repressed but horny] people make about you


All we have evidence for is that he dressed in a [Catholic school girl's plaid mini-skirt, bobbie socks and ballet boots]. That does not equal dressing like a [fetish slut]. Although granted, it probably wasn't cold enough for a [studded leather bra] in Florida at the time, but still.

Oh yeah, well the next time I see you two girls in provocatively short skirts and plunging necklines, I'm going to ask Zombie Brains to set you both up on dates with Hennepin Ave. back-alley-working trannies between tricks!

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Oh yeah, well the next time I see you two girls in provocatively short skirts and plunging necklines, I'm going to ask Zombie Brains to set you both up on dates with Hennepin Ave. back-alley-working trannies between tricks!


Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense? I guess it doesn't take you 2 pages to be incomprehensible after all.

At least it's minor evidence that you actually live here.


Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3375
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Don't let him push you around, stand your ground!



776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
.....
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony....

Wow, a law that is simple & moraly correct. MN should get this law enacted asap, it's just common sense. The question about Zimmerman is "was he provoking Tryvon?" If he was, lets hope justice is served.


Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Oh yeah, well the next time I see you two girls in provocatively short skirts and plunging necklines, I'm going to ask Zombie Brains to set you both up on dates with Hennepin Ave. back-alley-working trannies between tricks!


Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense? I guess it doesn't take you 2 pages to be incomprehensible after all.

At least it's minor evidence that you actually live here.

<bite me here> --->> Image

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I think I must be the only person in this crazy world who doesn't find hoodies threatening/thuggish. Where I live, soccer moms wear hoodies. Children wear them. Old people wear them. I see joggers wearing them sometimes. I see Giraldo on TV talking about how the hoodie is REALLY to blame and I just don't get it.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:22 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
For some people it seems to be the opposite of the use of the word "nigga"; it's only *not* ok when black people do it.

Also known as: not reverse racism but regular racism.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:29 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
I think some people think black people are scary no matter what they wear. It's weird to me.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:35 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
I think some people think black people are scary no matter what they wear. It's weird to me.


Yeah. The Daily Show did something on that a week ago. It's extremely disturbing, and people have really short memories about it.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:55 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Ether wrote:
I think some people think black people are scary no matter what they wear. It's weird to me.


Yeah. The Daily Show did something on that a week ago. It's extremely disturbing, and people have really short memories about it.

I think some people think that white people are scarier. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear stand off, e.g., The Cuban Missile Crisis, between two black-dominated governments? Was a black person suspected of circulating the Anthrax-laced letters to Congress, etc.? Hell no. When's the last time a black man bombed a federal building? When's the last time a black man was suspected of bombing a church with children in it? When's the last time a white man was found dead hanging by his neck in a tree in an undeveloped rural area?

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
I think some people think that white people are scarier. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear stand off, e.g., The Cuban Missile Crisis, between two black-dominated governments? Was a black person suspected of circulating the Anthrax-laced letters to Congress, etc.? Hell no. When's the last time a black man bombed a federal building? When's the last time a black man was suspected of bombing a church with children in it? When's the last time a white man was found dead hanging by his neck in a tree in an undeveloped rural area?


Well, yeah, if you wanna bring reality into it.

But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal [emphasis added.] to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal [emphasis added.] to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; [emphasis added.] people just think you can.

Show me the data of those people who think you can do that with nonwhites, and therefore are persuasive enough in popular culture to raise the issue to at least the status of urban myth. Then name the specific cultural symbols or aesthetic devices that those people cite. I'm really curious, because I have never heard of a particular cultural symbol or aesthetic device that carries a threatening connotation to any group, universally. Not even black youths wearing a hoodie. Sure, if you're a young black man and you enter a convenience store or liquor store late at night and you keep you hood up while you're in there, people are going to think you're suspicious. Guess what? They think anyone of any color doing that is suspicious under those circumstances. It's not the garment, it's the context in which it's worn, which makes George Zimmerman so damned absurd. It was night time, it was raining, and Trayvon was walking down a street coming from the direction of a 7-11 with Skittles and Arizona iced tea in his hands. No reasonable person would think Trayvon was necessarily up to no good, and it's extremely doubtful that George Zimmerman did either. More likely, Zimmerman wanted to use the hoodie as an excuse to profile and hence, justify rousting Martin. You show absolutely no evidence of your assertion holding true for people generally believing something like that about nonwhite people.

DaveS wrote:
I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. ...

Yeah, uh-huh, right, but... 1.) This doesn't support your point. 2.) If anything it makes your thesis look contrived and self-serving. In fact, your entire thesis is preposterous.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Yeah, uh-huh, right, but... 1.) This doesn't support your point. 2.) If anything it makes your thesis look contrived and self-serving. In fact, your entire thesis is preposterous.


And this is the essence of Cranky (and often Ether): alienating people when they're basically agreeing with him. Good job.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:03 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Yeah, uh-huh, right, but... 1.) This doesn't support your point. 2.) If anything it makes your thesis look contrived and self-serving. In fact, your entire thesis is preposterous.


And this is the essence of Cranky (and often Ether): alienating people when they're basically agreeing with him. Good job.

Let me make it simpler for you:
DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal [emphasis added.] to white culture, ... But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; [emphasis added.] people just think you can. [Emphasis added.]

Show me the data of those people who think you can do that with nonwhites, and therefore are persuasive enough in popular culture to raise the issue to at least the status of urban myth. Then name the specific cultural symbols or aesthetic devices that those people cite. ... You show absolutely no evidence of your assertion holding true for people generally believing something like that about nonwhite people.

DaveS wrote:
I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. ...

Yeah, uh-huh, right, but... 1.) This doesn't support your point. 2.) If anything it makes your thesis look contrived and self-serving. In fact, your entire thesis is preposterous.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS, please stop trolling my topic threads and my posts. You never added anything of substantial value. All you do is come off looking like a pretentious jerk with no common sense who's shooting his mouth off.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:29 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
DaveS, please stop trolling my topic threads and my posts. You never added anything of substantial value. All you do is come off looking like a pretentious jerk with no common sense who's shooting his mouth off.


How about this: I'll keep posting where and what I want, just like you'll keep posting the way you want on this board despite repeated requests from multiple people to keep it brief and nontechnical.

And by all means, continue requesting data and figures for generalizations other people make, while blithely making speculations about who finds who pretentious, jerky, non-common-sensical, and mouth-shooting.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
DaveS, please stop trolling my topic threads and my posts. You never added anything of substantial value. All you do is come off looking like a pretentious jerk with no common sense who's shooting his mouth off.


How about this: I'll keep posting where and what I want, just like you'll keep posting the way you want on this board despite repeated requests from multiple people to keep it brief and nontechnical.

This is a pubic message board. It's not merely for those who have no interest in an essay of substance and technical rigor. STOP READING POSTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN OR DON'T WANT TO READ.

DaveS wrote:
And by all means, continue requesting data and figures for generalizations other people make, while blithely making speculations about who finds who pretentious, jerky, non-common-sensical, and mouth-shooting.

I ask for data because your point is so absurd and internally inconsistent that it appears completely contrived and unfounded. Hence, I sincerely doubt that anyone else shares your view of the matter, which you assert as if it were common wisdom. When I ask for substantiation, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to defend your now obviously baseless clap-trap with citations to CREDIBLE sources, which you never seem to come up with, anyway.

Now go away. You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one thread.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
This is a pubic message board. It's not merely for those who have no interest in an essay of substance and technical rigor. STOP READING POSTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN OR DON'T WANT TO READ.


Likewise.

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
I ask for data because your point is so absurd and internally inconsistent that it appears completely contrived and unfounded. Hence, I sincerely doubt that anyone else shares your view of the matter, which you assert as if it were common wisdom.

When I ask for substantiation, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to defend your now obviously baseless clap-trap with citations to CREDIBLE sources, which you never seem to come up with, anyway.


I doubt you understood it then, because none of it was particularly controversial, and it certainly wasn't internally inconsistent. If I thought you were genuinely interested in discussing the matter I might have clarified it for you, but since your initial dismissive response showed that you were only interested in taking your signature cheapshots, I simply proceeded to point out once again what an asshole you are.

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Now go away. You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one thread.


No. And I want data to show that anyone but you thinks I made a fool of myself.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:54 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
This is a pubic message board. It's not merely for those who have no interest in an essay of substance and technical rigor. STOP READING POSTS THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN OR DON'T WANT TO READ.


Likewise.

Now you ARE trolling. Piss off.

DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
I ask for data because your point is so absurd and internally inconsistent that it appears completely contrived and unfounded. Hence, I sincerely doubt that anyone else shares your view of the matter, which you assert as if it were common wisdom.

When I ask for substantiation, I'm simply giving you the opportunity to defend your now obviously baseless clap-trap with citations to CREDIBLE sources, which you never seem to come up with, anyway.


I doubt you understood it then, because none of it was particularly controversial, and it certainly wasn't internally inconsistent. If I thought you were genuinely interested in discussing the matter I might have clarified it for you, but since your initial dismissive response showed that you were only interested in taking your signature cheapshots, I simply proceeded to point out once again what an asshole you are.

You're right. It was incomprehensibly inane, and if you really had a point to make you would have pointed out how I misinterpreted it by your subsequent clarification, which you cannot do because it never made any sense in the first place. You have a lot of nerve playing the sensitive, spurned cry baby, and it makes you look like a petulant child.

DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Now go away. You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one thread.


No. And I want data to show that anyone but you thinks I made a fool of myself.

Obviously this comment is pertinent only to this exchange, and no reasonable person (which you obviously are not) would believe that I asserted it as common wisdom. So again, piss off, troll.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
You're right. It was incomprehensibly inane, and if you really had a point to make you would have pointed out how I misinterpreted it by your subsequent clarification, which you cannot do because it never made any sense in the first place.


No, I wouldn't have, the way you put your response. The rational rejoinder to any response of the tone of yours is to simply call you an asshole. And how could I know how you misinterpreted it; you didn't say how you interpreted it. You just called it inconsistent. You said some stuff about wanting empirical proof, but that part has nothing to do with whether it's internally consistent or not.

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Obviously this comment is pertinent only to this exchange, and no reasonable person (which you obviously are not) would believe that I asserted it as common wisdom. So again, piss off, troll.


Yeah, that's kinda the point. To say someone "made a fool of themself" implies that people in general, reasonable people, would look at what the person said and conclude that they're a fool, or at least that what they said was foolish. The only evidence that you have is that *you* think it's foolish; no one else has weighed in on this particular conversation. So you have no evidence that people in general would find it foolish, and hence, no evidence that I made a fool of myself.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:10 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Image
DaveS: "You're an asshole."

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Apparently you two have quite the misunderstanding, as it is dominating this thread. Perhaps you should send private messages back and forth so the rest of us don't have to see who is infinitely right or wrong about what the other person said.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Yes, there are definitely clothing items that are predominantly associated with white people. Suspenders, pocket protectors, fanny packs... do I have to keep going? I know for a fact that if you wear a pocket protector around, people will just look at you and assume you are smart and they might even ask you to do their taxes. They will also assume you can't dance and have never been on a date. My point? People make assumptions based on appearance all the time, right or wrong.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:35 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
Apparently you two have quite the misunderstanding, as it is dominating this thread. Perhaps you should send private messages back and forth so the rest of us don't have to see who is infinitely right or wrong about what the other person said.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Yes, there are definitely clothing items that are predominantly associated with white people. Suspenders, pocket protectors, fanny packs... do I have to keep going? I know for a fact that if you wear a pocket protector around, people will just look at you and assume you are smart and they might even ask you to do their taxes. They will also assume you can't dance and have never been on a date. My point? People make assumptions based on appearance all the time, right or wrong.

Perhaps with all of DaveS's obfuscation about what he said, his original thesis has become lost. I'll quote it again:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal [emphasis added] to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal [emphasis added] to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; [emphasis added] people just think you can. [Emphasis added.]

Now let's take suspenders, pocket protectors and fanny packs. Suspenders are not exclusively associated with white people (because ANYONE who has ever worn a tuxedo wears suspenders because there are no belt loops or elasticized waistbands in tuxedo trousers), but even if they were, we would not attribute a cultural trait to all white people universally, simply because some white people wear suspenders. Nor would we attribute a specific cultural trait to all white people who wear suspenders, simply because they are wearing suspenders.

Likewise, pocket protectors are associated with nerds and geeks, i.e., engineering and technology pursuits, who come in all colors of the rainbow. Granted, however, they are mostly Caucasian, Asian, and Indian (because their parents have the money to prepare them for geekery). But we don't attribute a cultural trait to all Whites, Asians and Indians universally, simply because a small few geeks from their ranks wear pocket protectors.

Fanny packs typically fall into the same category with "messenger bags" and other man-purses. However, fanny packs are GREAT for backcountry hiking/camping if you wear them in front. That way you can quickly access essential items like compasses, GPS units, maps, hiking/camping permits, multicolored map pens, mole skin, liquid skin, a spare pair of socks, pepper spray (for bears), and bug repellent (for pests like DaveS); i.e., items that would otherwise be in your backpack, or are obstructed from access by the hip belts and shoulder and chest straps on the pack frames. Hint: Cargo pant pockets are great too, but only for really light stuff, because you don't want that can of pepper spray to bang against the side of your leg for 10 miles.

So, for the sake of argument, if we saw a hiker/camper wearing a fanny pack as stipulated above, we'd think differently than if we saw a guy wearing one while he was shopping for designer jeans at Saks 5th Avenue. Regardless, we'd never attribute a cultural trait, universally, to the bearer's ethnic group, simply because we saw a member of that group wearing a fanny pack. This is an excellent example, therefore, of where the context in which we find the bearer defines the aesthetics, and hence, the cultural perceptions and values that we place upon them.

And this is the point I've been making all along. DaveS's thesis was complete bullshit from start to end. It was inane and fallacious. We don't even do that with black people, regardless of the liberal press-inflamed histrionics associated with George Zimmerman, as if all white people profile all black kids wearing hoodies, anywhere they wear them, and at any time. The fact that people say we do is usually emotionally-based, hyper-reactive over-sensitivity that is neither rational nor level-headed, which is why we all need to calm down and deal with the central issue of favoritism being shown to George Zimmerman by the District Attorney. The DA drove 50 miles on the evening in question to countermand the Sanford PD homicide investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman with homicide.

Alternatively, or as in the case of George Zimmerman, citing a hoodie was only used as an excuse to justify profiling Trayvon Martin as a threat that deserved rousting. No reasonable person would draw a logical conclusion that because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie at the time (outdoors, on the street, at night and in the rain) that he was therefore, necessarily, in the process of committing a crime, or preparing for same (e.g., "casing the joint"), or that he had committed a crime already.

I draw the conclusion about George Zimmerman that I do, admittedly based on the scant information that he was clever enough to create a 911 record that would subsequently seem to justify a reasonable suspicion (see Terry v. Ohio and progeny) about Trayvon Martin. And this obtains (see below) notwithstanding the fact that private citizens are not legally empowered to confront and detain, or otherwise accost people, based on the reasonable suspicion doctrine enunciated in Terry v. Ohio [Citation provided earlier in this topic thread.]. To give "fresh pursuit" to a crime suspect, a private citizen must have either witnessed the commission of a misdemeanor, or they must have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony.

Therefore, Zimmerman was and is rational and intelligent enough to know that the simple presence of a hoodie is insufficient in and of itself to justify his contrived "suspicions", but somehow he thinks that the police will side with him for rousting Martin. And this is the JACKPOT question... WHY WOULD ZIMMERMAN BELIEVE THAT AND TAKE THE RISKS OF ACTING ON IT IF HE DID NOT HAVE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE SANFORD PD THAT WOULD LEAD HIM TO CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS SECURE IN HIS ASSUMPTION? What Zimmerman didn't count on was that Trayvon would "stand his ground", that a physical altercation would ensue, and that it would rapidly escalate out of control as Trayvon resisted being accosted by Zimmerman.

Moreover, Trayvon's screams for help (which we have expert forensic testimony in the press that confirms that the screams were not George Zimmerman's) obviously panicked Zimmerman, who made the mistake of shooting Trayvon Martin in order to eliminate a witness who could testify to his abuses. I'm not saying that Zimmerman was either smart enough or devious enough to have planned the shooting as a default position from which he would then be exonerated based on self-defense. On the contrary, Zimmerman simply believed that without a witness present to testify against him, it would be his word versus that of a "fucking coon"; i.e., an "asshole" who was "always getting away with ..."

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Due to all the obfuscation from pointless, baseless nonarguments and other sophism, or alternatively, good-faith arguments that got derailed by such clap-trap, let's be clear on what all the evidence we need to know tells us about what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night that left Martin dead.

George Zimmerman was a territorialistic predator who was looking for an object for his domination. He pursued Trayvon about the grounds of their community without any legal justification whatsoever. In fact, the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman as much when he said "we don't need you to do that", after asking Zimmerman if he was pursuing Martin.

When Zimmerman's supporters say that he is not a racist and that his pursuit of Trayvon Martin was not racially motivated, to some degree, I'm inclined to agree. Despite uttering "fucking coon" under his breath, which is more denigrating than evidence of racial animus, what really was motivating Zimmerman were the "assholes" who are "always getting away ..."

The fact that Trayvon was young and black and wearing a hoodie was merely a pretext that Zimmerman used as an excuse to roust Martin. Would this have happened in 1960's Belfast, N. Ireland, George would have been rousting people who he could scapegoat as being Protestants. Therefore, Trayvon's "profile" was a socially and culturally convenient set of circumstances (i.e., because of interracial tensions, fears and the history of such in the broader Sanford community), which were more or less fortuitously found in a setting (i.e., a white-dominated, gated community) that suited Zimmerman's agenda, to wit:
    Namely, to throw his weight around and dominate a less forceful or less status-entitled person in a territory over which Zimmerman desired to exercise domination and dominion against "ne'er-do-well, troublesome outsiders" (my terms).

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Now let's take suspenders, pocket protectors and fanny packs. Suspenders are not exclusively associated with white people (because ANYONE who has ever worn a tuxedo wears suspenders because there are no belt loops or elasticized waistbands in tuxedo trousers)


What's the point of debating my examples of clothing items associated with white people? As I said, there are more so these are just quick ones off the top of my head. I indicated I could keep going but that there was no point because I'd already proven my point that there are in fact items of clothing that are generally associated with white people.

Have people of other races worn suspender or pocket protectors before? Yes, but that is not the point. They aren't associated with them, so being the exception to the rule doesn't prove anything. We're talking generalities here. I'm friends with a black guy that dressed like a punk rock dude. Punk rock dudes are generally thought of as white, that doesn't mean that black ones don't exist- it's just not the norm associated with that culture/style.


facepalm wrote:
Fanny packs typically fall into the same category with "messenger bags" and other man-purses. However, fanny packs are GREAT for backcountry hiking/camping if you wear them in front. That way you can quickly access essential items like compasses, GPS units, maps, hiking/camping permits, multicolored map pens, mole skin, liquid skin, a spare pair of socks, pepper spray (for bears), and bug repellent (for pests like DaveS); i.e., items that would otherwise be in your backpack, or are obstructed from access by the hip belts and shoulder and chest straps on the pack frames. Hint: Cargo pant pockets are great too, but only for really light stuff, because you don't want that can of pepper spray to bang against the side of your leg for 10 miles.


Really? Could you please outline the many other uses for a fanny pack that have nothing to do with the conversation? I'm thinking a real in-depth explanation of how fanny packs are designed to function, as well as a complete list of the many things that can be stored in a fanny pack. I don't think we need to cover the many uses for cargo pants in this forum- better to start a new thread about that.


CC wrote:
So, for the sake of argument, if we saw a hiker/camper wearing a fanny pack as stipulated above, we'd think differently than if we saw a guy wearing one while he was shopping for designer jeans at Saks 5th Avenue. Regardless, we'd never attribute a cultural trait, universally, to the bearer's ethnic group, simply because we saw a member of that group wearing a fanny pack.


Ok, let's go with your example here and close our eyes. When you close your eyes and imagine this mythical camper, with his fanny pack and his cargo pants and pepper spray, let me ask you - what color is his skin?


[quote="CC]And this is the point I've been making all along. DaveS's thesis was complete bullshit from start to end. It was inane and fallacious. [/quote]

Was it flacid as well? Hehe just kidding. All I can say to that is don't let DaveS be your standard-bearer for posts. I may happen to be with him on this point, but generally speaking not so much.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:20 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3269
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ah ha ha I was going to bring up Cargo Pants.

Here Crusty, you like photos.

Image


Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:44 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
We're talking generalities here.


Cranky generally doesn't like it when you do that.


Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
...I'd already proven my point that there are in fact items of clothing that are generally associated with white people.

No you did not. You never once cited why or upon what authority you based your judgments. I've never associated any of your examples generally with white people. Hence, I can only conclude that they are peculiar to you alone. Hence, your observations appear to be based on a parochial world view, but that would surprise me, unless you've never lived outside of Twin Cities suburbia for any appreciable length of time. Perhaps also, you're not old enough to remember when fanny packs were "in vogue" (shortly), and people of all ethnicities could be seen wearing them.

Ether wrote:
Have people of other races worn suspender or pocket protectors before? Yes, but that is not the point.

Yes, that is the point, and I raise it to demonstrate why it's not an exception to any rule, and that none of your examples are even generally associated with white people (except by you and your reference groups).

Ether wrote:
They aren't associated with them, so being the exception to the rule doesn't prove anything. We're talking generalities here.

In this case, they are not exceptions to any rule, hence, they aptly demonstrate that there is no rule that you refer to .

Ether wrote:
facepalm wrote:
Fanny packs typically fall into the same category with "messenger bags" and other man-purses. However, fanny packs are GREAT for backcountry hiking/camping if you wear them in front. ...


Really? Could you please outline the many other uses for a fanny pack that have nothing to do with the conversation?

You missed the point. This is an excellent... scratch that... this is an absolutely superlative example of how context defines the perception. In fact, the fanny pack I bought was manufactured by Eddie Bauer and it came with two Lexan polycarbonate water bottles, and holders for same, which were built into the waist band on either side of the fanny pack. And this is why wearing a fanny pack has nothing to do with an expression of white culture generally. I really have no idea where you pulled that idea from.

Ether wrote:
CC wrote:
So, for the sake of argument, if we saw a hiker/camper wearing a fanny pack as stipulated above, we'd think differently than if we saw a guy wearing one while he was shopping for designer jeans at Saks 5th Avenue. Regardless, we'd never attribute a cultural trait, universally, to the bearer's ethnic group, simply because we saw a member of that group wearing a fanny pack.


Ok, let's go with your example here and close our eyes. When you close your eyes and imagine this mythical camper, with his fanny pack and his cargo pants and pepper spray, let me ask you - what color is his skin?

Do yourself a favor. Go to Rocky Mountain National Park or Yellowstone during the peak tourist season. Take a good look around the place. Then close your eyes and take your own advice. If you see mostly white people in your minds eye, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with white culture. It's a function of statistical probability because of the ease of proximity and the relative disparity in the cost of tourism. Oh, and another thing, it's not just Japanese that carry cameras while on tour. In fact, carrying a camera while on tour has nothing to do with any Japanese cultural trait, generally. It's a touristy thing. If you don't believe me, go to Venice Italy in the summer (not Cal.) and see for yourself. Really. I'm not messing with you. You simply can't appreciate it until you see it in a tourism-economy-neutral, high-tourism environment.

Ether wrote:
CC wrote:
And this is the point I've been making all along. DaveS's thesis was complete bullshit from start to end. It was inane and fallacious.


Was it flacid [sic] as well? ...

I think we both hope so. :wink:

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
zom-zom wrote:
Image



Here you go CC, proof positive that I'm right about suspenders and nerdy stuff being associated with white people. This character was for a comedy show and the running joke played upon that fact that this kid acted and dressed nerdy and white. Need more proof? Look at Carlton from The Fresh Prince show (at least I think that was the character's name- it's been a while). How did he dress and act? Like a rich white person's stereotype. That was the joke in that show too. The examples of this are endless, so I don't know why you would continue arguing your point.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:42 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
No you did not. You never once cited why or upon what authority you based your judgments. I've never associated any of your examples generally with white people. Hence, I can only conclude that they are peculiar to you alone.


That's the great thing about common knowledge... it doesn't need a lot of explanation because everyone knows it to be true.

I work in advertising. I produce images of people from agencies all around the world. Hikers are always white in ads because that is their target demographic. Same thing with rock climbing, kayaking, swimming. Ever been ice fishing? How many black people do you see engaging in that activity? The answer is virtually zero. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or passing any kind of judgment, it just is what it is. People generalize all the time and societies associate certain types of people with certain things, right or wrong.


CC wrote:
In this case, they are not exceptions to any rule, hence, they aptly demonstrate that there is no rule that you refer to .


Then you are the exception to the rule for not viewing things as your society does. Either that or you don't know what generalities are. Want another example? Let's say I just told you I saw an accordian player. What gender would you guess they were? What skin color would you guess they had? See?


facepalm wrote:
this is an absolutely superlative example of how context defines the perception. In fact, the fanny pack I bought was manufactured by Eddie Bauer and it came with two Lexan polycarbonate water bottles, and holders for same, which were built into the waist band on either side of the fanny pack. And this is why wearing a fanny pack has nothing to do with an expression of white culture generally. I really have no idea where you pulled that idea from.


That's ok, I really have no idea how all of that proves any point, other than that Eddie Bauer makes very hi-tech and practical fanny packs... to which I offer no argument.


CC wrote:
So, for the sake of argument, if we saw a hiker/camper wearing a fanny pack as stipulated above, we'd think differently than if we saw a guy wearing one while he was shopping for designer jeans at Saks 5th Avenue. Regardless, we'd never attribute a cultural trait, universally, to the bearer's ethnic group, simply because we saw a member of that group wearing a fanny pack.


Dr. Dre wouldn't wear a fanny pack. How many fanny packs do you think are walking around Saks Fifth Avenue by the way? There is no way to make this point so you might as well move on because I can cite examples forever on this one.


CC wrote:
Ok, let's go with your example here and close our eyes. When you close your eyes and imagine this mythical camper, with his fanny pack and his cargo pants and pepper spray, let me ask you - what color is his skin?


You avoided this question, so I figured I'd re-ask it. What color is his skin?

Sending me out into the world to find examples of exceptions to generalities doesn't disprove generalities.


[quote=CC]Oh, and another thing, it's not just Japanese that carry cameras while on tour. In fact, carrying a camera while on tour has nothing to do with any Japanese cultural trait, generally. It's a touristy thing. [/quote]

Oh my god this is getting easy. You just gave me another perfect example. Camera-carrying Japanese tourists are another stereotype of asian people that is extremely common. If you were to ask 100 people what race a group of people carrying cameras was, a large number of them would say they are Japanese or asian. That doesn't make it true, but it means that it is a common generalization that people make. Thanks!

So anyway to your point that white people don't have things associated with them, you're wrong and I've shown that with abundant examples. Just about every major racial or cultural group has things associated with them. Stereotypes exist and generalities are made all the time by folks worldwide. It is not possible to disprove that because it is common knowledge. Moving on.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:16 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Ether wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
No you did not. You never once cited why or upon what authority you based your judgments. I've never associated any of your examples generally with white people. Hence, I can only conclude that they are peculiar to you alone.


That's the great thing about common knowledge... it doesn't need a lot of explanation because everyone knows it to be true.

No they don't and no it isn't. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Lot's of people are incredibly parochial in their world view, largely because they are intellectually underdeveloped. Hence, stereotyping, which is the subject at issue in this thread.

Ether, again, you've fallen into DaveS's mental masturbation mind trap, and you've gotten way, way far afield. Perhaps with all of DaveS's obfuscation about what he said, his original thesis has become lost. I'll quote it again:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
DaveS wrote:
But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal [emphasis added] to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal [emphasis added] to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; [emphasis added] people just think you can. [Emphasis added.]


And this is the point I've been making all along. DaveS's thesis was complete bullshit from start to end. It was inane and fallacious. We don't even do that with black people, regardless of the liberal press-inflamed histrionics associated with George Zimmerman, as if all white people profile all black kids wearing hoodies, anywhere they wear them, and at any time. The fact that people say we do is usually emotionally-based, hyper-reactive over-sensitivity that is neither rational nor level-headed, and that's what leads to myth and urban legend.

ster·e·o·type
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. [Emphasis added.]
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

stereotype [ster´e-o-tīp″]
an exaggerated, generalized, oversimplified belief or image, often concerning a group, an individual, or a form of behavior.

Stereotypes are wrong. By definition, they are ALWAYS wrong. They are not just morally wrong because they are based on prejudice or because negative stereotypes typically denigrate, slight or otherwise impugn, defame or disparage "out groups", but because they are neither factually accurate, nor are they reliably generalizable from the observed sample to the target group in question, nor are they logically correct, nor are they empirically valid.

Stereotypes are like myths, urban legends, and conspiracy theories, which simply do not square with objective reality.

    Example: Some idiot tried to tell me that the reason the airplane that hit the Pentagon on 911 didn't do more damage than it could have, and the reason it hit the ground first, is because defense department operatives were using secret technology to mess up the airplane's guidance/piloting system.

    Another idiot tried to tell me that the reason the polar icecaps are melting is not because of global temperature increases, but because dark particulate matter that is injected into the atmosphere from all manner of phenomena, some natural and some man made, are settling on the snow and ice and, hence, absorbing more solar heat since the snow and ice isn't as white anymore and therefore doesn't reflect the solar energy like it used to.

Guess what? LOTS of other IDIOTS actually believe crap like that. And as the average education level of people within a given reference group drops, more and more people are susceptible to believing such sophistry. It spreads like a virus. In fact, the more "sense" it makes, without really testing it, the more that people are likely to believe it. That doesn't make it "COMMON KNOWLEDGE". Because when tested it proves false, that makes it either mass deception, mass misconception, mass credulity, a shared fallacy, a convenient, self-serving fiction, a myth, an urban legend, an "article of faith", or mass delusion.

Example: Most people believe that airplane wings achieve lift because the airflow going over the top of the wing is faster, thus causing a low pressure area on top of the wing. -- FALSE!!

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong3.html

Ether wrote:
Ever been ice fishing? How many black people do you see engaging in that activity? The answer is virtually zero. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or passing any kind of judgment, it just is what it is. People generalize all the time and societies associate certain types of people with certain things, right or wrong.

So, in other words, simply because the observation is false and the generalization is misimputed, hence it's a stereotype; and simply because myopic, parochially-minded people believe it's true, does not make it common knowledge. Common knowledge is not stereotype because knowledge has been proven true. Knowledge is testable for being either true or false or for being objectively existent or non-existent, it's factually accurate, it's logically correct, it's empirically valid, it's operationally reliable, and it's replicable, all of which makes it credible. Anything less is mass deception, mass misconception, mass credulity, a shared fallacy, a convenient, self-serving fiction, a myth, an urban legend, an "article of faith", or mass delusion.

CC wrote:
In this case, they are not exceptions to any rule, hence, they aptly demonstrate that there is no rule that you refer to .


Ether wrote:
Then you are the exception to the rule for not viewing things as your society does.

No, I AM the rule. Stereotypes are invalid.

Ether wrote:
Either that or you don't know what generalities are.

Generalizations are factually accurate, reliably generalizable from the observed sample to the target group, logically correct, and empirically valid. Anything else is stereotypical mind swill.

Ether wrote:
Want another example? Let's say I just told you I saw an accordian player. What gender would you guess they were? What skin color would you guess they had? See?

Hells bells man, EVERONE knows its RUTH ADAMS from Nye's Polonaise Room. What do you take us for, neanderthals?

What are some famous Black Accordion players?
In: Entertainment & Arts › Music

Bois Sec Ardoin joined with violinist Canray Fontenot in 1948 to play house dances as the Duralde Ramblers. He is one of the best known accordion players in Creole music.

Accordions are mostly associated with blacks in creole, Cajun/Zydeco music from Louisiana.
Accordions are mostly associated with whites in polka and other folk music of European origin.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:27 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
We don't even do that with black people, regardless of the liberal press-inflamed histrionics associated with George Zimmerman, as if all white people profile all black kids wearing hoodies, anywhere they wear them, and at any time.

Ok, so it's not that there's a stereotype about black people wearing hoodies, it's that there's a stereotype that there's a stereotype about black people wearing hoodies.

Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Lot's of people are incredibly parochial in their world view, largely because they are intellectually underdeveloped. Hence, stereotyping, which is the subject at issue in this thread.

I trust the irony of this IS lost on you.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
We don't even do that with black people, regardless of the liberal press-inflamed histrionics associated with George Zimmerman, as if all white people profile all black kids wearing hoodies, anywhere they wear them, and at any time.

Ok, so it's not that there's a stereotype about black people wearing hoodies, it's that there's a stereotype that there's a stereotype about black people wearing hoodies.

Now you're getting it!! The idea that Whites profile Black, hoodie wearing youth as being troublesome, generally, is a false perception that is both exaggerated and extrapolated to ridiculous proportion. The vast majority of whites only "profile" black youths in hoodies (if they do so at all) in questionable circumstances where they are situationally inappropriate; i.e., in settings that would suggest to the average, reasonable, prudent person of ordinary care and intelligence that wearing the hoodie is likely to contribute to shrouding one's face, and hence, motivated by a desire to conceal one's identity from observation, and hence, recognition.

Look, can't we all just get along? Blacks don't want Whites to wear their pointy-headed white hoods with the eye holes cut out of them in their neighborhoods, and Whites don't want blacks to wear their hoodies up inside their liquor stores and convenience stores and gas stations, especially at night. So can't we all come to some kind of reasonable accommodation with each other?

DaveS wrote:
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Lot's of people are incredibly parochial in their world view, largely because they are intellectually underdeveloped. Hence, stereotyping, which is the subject at issue in this thread.

I trust the irony of this IS lost on you.

DaveS, stop trolling. You know you're a bullshit artist and that's all there is to it.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Last edited by Cranky-'n-Crusty on Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:57 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
Cranky-'n-Crusty wrote:
Now you're getting it!! The idea that Whites profile Black, hoodie wearing youth as being troublesome, generally, is a false perception that is both exaggerated and extrapolated to ridiculous proportion. The vast majority of whites only "profile" black youths in hoodies (if they do so at all) in questionable circumstances where they are situationally inappropriate; i.e., in settings that would suggest to the average, reasonable, prudent person of ordinary care and intelligence that wearing the hoodie is likely to contribute to shrouding one's face, and hence, motivated by a desire to conceal one's identity from observation, and hence, recognition.


Ok, so how exactly do you know what the vast majority of whites do?


Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:33 am
Posts: 277
Location: Murderapolis
Post Re: Is George Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim Valid?
DaveS wrote:
Ok, so how exactly do you know what the vast majority of whites do?

Random sampling of the entire American population. It's called self-report survey research. All it takes is a sample of 1000 appropriately-drawn people.

_________________
There is, perhaps, no addiction more profound than that to which both love and hate enslave us.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 207 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.