On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
i don't think so. I heard "coons" naturally the first time, then 2nd time, thinking of "punks" I heard *possibly* "punks" on the first playthrough, but after he does the equalizing and boosting I think the C comes out, not to mention the S should stand out even more if it is indeed punks, going from a plosive to a fricative. ... yea i had to take a phonetics course last year.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQdsJwpSUKw
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
i don't think so. I heard "coons" naturally the first time, then 2nd time, thinking of "punks" I heard *possibly* "punks" on the first playthrough, but after he does the equalizing and boosting I think the C comes out, not to mention the S should stand out even more if it is indeed punks, going from a plosive to a fricative. ... yea i had to take a phonetics course last year.
weird. i listened to the tapes before i read about the case, and i couldnt hear anything. i went back and listened after i heard about the alleged "coon" comment and i just heard something garbled. im an old man though, maybe my hearing isnt so great. =)
I dont believe that he said "coons" at all the tones are all wrong for it. The main thing that stuck out for me is that the vowl had an "o" sound as in coast instead of "eww"
This Zimmerman's call... I think he was ACTUALLY scared of him. I don't know. But this will be a difficult case to make.
Hate crimes are... well, (imo) fueled by hate. This guy doesn't sound like he hates the victim. He sounded a little scared, if anything. Otherwise, why would he dail 911?
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the initiation of the altercation that occurred, which perhaps Trayvon struck first (I would say, feeling threatened by a strange man following him, isn't that unreasonable) OR the initiation of the entire situation that led to the altercation, of which Zimmerman is entirely culpable (because, let's be honest, America has taught him to be suspicious of the intentions of any black youth. After hearing the calls I refuse to accept he is not acting via his subconscious, implicit bias.. you can hear him trying to rationalize his own bias "he's just looking around.. he looks like he's on drugs.. Something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is.. "). Seriously Zimmerman, just don't fucking leave your car, listen to the advice of the dispatcher, and above all control your goddamn perception about what a black youth *must* be up to and keep your power-tripping neighborhood watchman ego under control. If we could somehow absolutely objectively determine whether or not he said "fucking coons," would you be surprised if it were true? honestly?
However, I am more upset with police who at least didn't arrest a person who confessed to shooting another person when the truth of what actually occurred was still yet to be determined. I don't think my standards for justice are unreasonably high, or are motivated by some "liberal need" to view things as racially motivated. He should've been held in custody.
This is what is wrong with the US media and justice system. Everyone jumps on the story before all of the facts are out, accuse him in the court of public opinion, and potentially damage the defendant's ability to get a fair trial. I mean look at the first response by a TL admin. "Guilty, riots inc if he df boesn't get convicted, herp derp." Sure, he may be guilty 9 out of 10 times, but we have to let the justice system operate without bias or anyone is in danger of being convicted by the mob before he gets into a courtroom.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQdsJwpSUKw
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
i don't think so. I heard "coons" naturally the first time, then 2nd time, thinking of "punks" I heard *possibly* "punks" on the first playthrough, but after he does the equalizing and boosting I think the C comes out, not to mention the S should stand out even more if it is indeed punks, going from a plosive to a fricative. ... yea i had to take a phonetics course last year.
Question though: does playing with audio change it? I mean if we are talking about minute differences in pitch change and so on that are the difference between one word and another, doesn't amplifying or removing a certain part of the sound change the word? If you can only hear "coons" when he changes how the word sounds, is it even coons originally?
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
i have heard the allegation that they made suggestions to witnesses. (not sure if that is coercion, but whatever.) i believe the witnesses themselves said that.
i have also heard the allegation that they gave the kid a drug test, but not zimmerman. not sure how people know that without the autopsy report, but whatever. maybe they had to disclose it to the parents.
what is it that they didnt do or did that made no sense? i am looking for actual specifics you can support, not conjecture.
I'm fairlry certain every autopsy has a toxicology report attached to it.
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the initiation of the altercation that occurred, which perhaps Trayvon struck first (I would say, feeling threatened by a strange man following him, isn't that unreasonable) OR the initiation of the entire situation that led to the altercation, of which Zimmerman is entirely culpable (because, let's be honest, America has taught him to be suspicious of the intentions of any black youth. After hearing the calls I refuse to accept he is not acting via his subconscious, implicit bias.. you can hear him trying to rationalize his own bias "he's just looking around.. he looks like he's on drugs.. Something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is.. "). Seriously Zimmerman, just don't fucking leave your car, listen to the advice of the dispatcher, and above all control your goddamn perception about what a black youth *must* be up to and keep your power-tripping neighborhood watchman ego under control.
If we could somehow absolutely objectively determine whether or not he said "fucking coons," would you be surprised if it were true? honestly?
1) "Strange man following you" doesn't justify physical action. Not even under Florida law.
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that.
On March 22 2012 08:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If he is acquitted I easily expect there to be riots as it was murder plain and simple.
Let me guess, you said the same thing about those Duke lacrosse players when they were accused of rape? Even if it appears someone is guilty 99 out of 100 times, they deserve a fair trial.
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
i have heard the allegation that they made suggestions to witnesses. (not sure if that is coercion, but whatever.) i believe the witnesses themselves said that.
i have also heard the allegation that they gave the kid a drug test, but not zimmerman. not sure how people know that without the autopsy report, but whatever. maybe they had to disclose it to the parents.
what is it that they didnt do or did that made no sense? i am looking for actual specifics you can support, not conjecture.
I'm fairlry certain every autopsy has a toxicology report attached to it.
true, but there is no autopsy report that has been released that i can find.
an ABC article i just read said that the reason the kid was given a drug test was because its standard procedure for autopsies, but zimmerman wasnt given one because they apparently didnt feel it was necessary.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQdsJwpSUKw
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
i don't think so. I heard "coons" naturally the first time, then 2nd time, thinking of "punks" I heard *possibly* "punks" on the first playthrough, but after he does the equalizing and boosting I think the C comes out, not to mention the S should stand out even more if it is indeed punks, going from a plosive to a fricative. ... yea i had to take a phonetics course last year.
Question though: does playing with audio change it? I mean if we are talking about minute differences in pitch change and so on that are the difference between one word and another, doesn't amplifying or removing a certain part of the sound change the word? If you can only hear "coons" when he changes how the word sounds, is it even coons originally?
I see your point, definitely. but not with the equalizing he did, which is designed specifically to make speech more clear and articulate given the compression that happens over mobile phone signals ("reduce the noise"). It is there originally, the differences I was pointing out would be there if it was "punk" too but they would similarly become more clear after the edit
The police dispatch records and neighbor accounts say it all. The Miami PD is just trying to cover their asses. It's disgusting plain and simple.
He kills a kid half his weight and unarmed when he's armed? In what world does that qualify as self defense? Even if everything else is pure speculation, that much to me screams foul play.
On March 24 2012 08:20 Vindicare605 wrote: This whole case is fucking disgusting.
The police dispatch records and neighbor accounts say it all. The Miami PD is just trying to cover their asses. It's disgusting plain and simple.
He kills a kid half his weight and unarmed when he's armed? In what world does that qualify as self defense? Even if everything else is pure speculation, that much to me screams foul play.
Read a bit more, or read the wiki on the situation. It's more complex than that. And it's not Miami PD
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the initiation of the altercation that occurred, which perhaps Trayvon struck first (I would say, feeling threatened by a strange man following him, isn't that unreasonable) OR the initiation of the entire situation that led to the altercation, of which Zimmerman is entirely culpable (because, let's be honest, America has taught him to be suspicious of the intentions of any black youth. After hearing the calls I refuse to accept he is not acting via his subconscious, implicit bias.. you can hear him trying to rationalize his own bias "he's just looking around.. he looks like he's on drugs.. Something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is.. "). Seriously Zimmerman, just don't fucking leave your car, listen to the advice of the dispatcher, and above all control your goddamn perception about what a black youth *must* be up to and keep your power-tripping neighborhood watchman ego under control.
If we could somehow absolutely objectively determine whether or not he said "fucking coons," would you be surprised if it were true? honestly?
1) "Strange man following you" doesn't justify physical action. Not even under Florida law.
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that.
Yea, but we don't know how long Zimmerman was observing before he placed the call and we also don't know for sure when he concluded that he was black. It was the first thing that the dispatcher inquired about, and he said, "he looks black." http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Yes, it's unproven here (except that I hear "coons", anyways), but I don't agree that it's speculative at all that he would have a bias toward black youth, it's something we all share culturally, unfortunately (not to mention the same applies for sexuality, gender, ability, etc.). I have one. You have one, so long as you're not black yourself. In America, the way which this bias/indoctrination is informed by images/media is multitudinous, not to mention verified by neurology, which has performed tests of flashing faces of white/black people and noted activity in the amygdala. A mature citizen examines how they're effected by implicit bias and tries to control how it effects perception and behavior. A self-awareness I don't think Zimmerman was capable of in this instance. I don't think I've created this because it's a narrative that "i'm comfortable with" as much as the vise-versa, it's uncomfortable to consider you/I/we might have a racist brain without any agency on our part in designing our subconscious
How the hell is this even vaguely defensible? I don't understand how people are actually trying to justify the police and Zimmerman's actions... there are so many things that are fucked up about both that it seems totally ludicrous to even show a semblance of support to them.
EDIT: Holy shit, just read through the bit about "stand your ground" laws... in what fucked up parallel universe is it in any way justifiable to kill another human being because you're too stubborn to defuse the situation in other manners?
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the initiation of the altercation that occurred, which perhaps Trayvon struck first (I would say, feeling threatened by a strange man following him, isn't that unreasonable) OR the initiation of the entire situation that led to the altercation, of which Zimmerman is entirely culpable (because, let's be honest, America has taught him to be suspicious of the intentions of any black youth. After hearing the calls I refuse to accept he is not acting via his subconscious, implicit bias.. you can hear him trying to rationalize his own bias "he's just looking around.. he looks like he's on drugs.. Something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is.. "). Seriously Zimmerman, just don't fucking leave your car, listen to the advice of the dispatcher, and above all control your goddamn perception about what a black youth *must* be up to and keep your power-tripping neighborhood watchman ego under control.
If we could somehow absolutely objectively determine whether or not he said "fucking coons," would you be surprised if it were true? honestly?
1) "Strange man following you" doesn't justify physical action. Not even under Florida law.
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that.
Yea, but we don't know how long Zimmerman was observing before he placed the call and we also don't know for sure when he concluded that he was black. It was the first thing that the dispatcher inquired about, and he said, "he looks black." http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Yes, it's unproven here (except that I hear "coons", anyways), but I don't agree that it's speculative at all that he would have a bias toward black youth, it's something we all share culturally, unfortunately (not to mention the same applies for sexuality, gender, ability, etc.). I have one. You have one, so long as you're not black yourself. In America, the way which this bias/indoctrination is informed by images/media is multitudinous, not to mention verified by neurology, which has performed tests of flashing faces of white/black people and noted activity in the amygdala. A mature citizen examines how they're effected by implicit bias and tries to control how it effects perception and behavior. A self-awareness I don't think Zimmerman was capable of in this instance.
I remember that study: blacks had the same response to black images too, so the "as long as you're not black yourself" isn't right.
On March 24 2012 08:31 Ausfailia wrote: How the hell is this even vaguely defensible? I don't understand how people are actually trying to justify the police and Zimmerman's actions... there are so many things that are fucked up about both that it seems totally ludicrous to even show a semblance of support to them.
EDIT: Holy shit, just read through the bit about "stand your ground" laws... in what fucked up parallel universe is it in any way justifiable to kill another human being because you're too stubborn to defuse the situation in other manners?
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it.
I'm not sure we're talking about the initiation of the altercation that occurred, which perhaps Trayvon struck first (I would say, feeling threatened by a strange man following him, isn't that unreasonable) OR the initiation of the entire situation that led to the altercation, of which Zimmerman is entirely culpable (because, let's be honest, America has taught him to be suspicious of the intentions of any black youth. After hearing the calls I refuse to accept he is not acting via his subconscious, implicit bias.. you can hear him trying to rationalize his own bias "he's just looking around.. he looks like he's on drugs.. Something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is.. "). Seriously Zimmerman, just don't fucking leave your car, listen to the advice of the dispatcher, and above all control your goddamn perception about what a black youth *must* be up to and keep your power-tripping neighborhood watchman ego under control.
If we could somehow absolutely objectively determine whether or not he said "fucking coons," would you be surprised if it were true? honestly?
1) "Strange man following you" doesn't justify physical action. Not even under Florida law.
2) The whole racism thing is entirely unproven. He's called 911 and identified the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realizes the guy is black. And no I wouldn't be surprised if he said "coons" and had a racist mindset, but presupposing that and putting your own "he's a racist" narrative on top of it is just your own desire to make the situation fit something you are comfortable with. The evidence is not there for that.
Yea, but we don't know how long Zimmerman was observing before he placed the call and we also don't know for sure when he concluded that he was black. It was the first thing that the dispatcher inquired about, and he said, "he looks black." http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
Yes, it's unproven here (except that I hear "coons", anyways), but I don't agree that it's speculative at all that he would have a bias toward black youth, it's something we all share culturally, unfortunately (not to mention the same applies for sexuality, gender, ability, etc.). I have one. You have one, so long as you're not black yourself. In America, the way which this bias/indoctrination is informed by images/media is multitudinous, not to mention verified by neurology, which has performed tests of flashing faces of white/black people and noted activity in the amygdala. A mature citizen examines how they're effected by implicit bias and tries to control how it effects perception and behavior. A self-awareness I don't think Zimmerman was capable of in this instance.
I remember that study: blacks had the same response to black images too, so the "as long as you're not black yourself" isn't right.
Well, yea you are right. I suppose I shouldn't say that so declaratively, it is just a more complex response because it is also involved with the sense of self, but to be shown "blackness" and have that response just means they are guilty of similar bias because they receive the same kinds of coded information. In the aftermath of the orb scandal, another dude on this site told me an anecdote regarding Desmond Tutu on a Nigerian Air flight (essentially all-black airline), and one occassion they struck remarkable turbulence, and his first thought was they were screwed, because "there's no white people to land this plane." A man who spent the entirety of his life fighting racism and apartheid is not immune to this
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tQyJa.jpg)
