A commenter writes:
Has anyone outside the Steve-o-Sphere noticed that, in typical fashion, the grounds for outrage keep subtly shifting?
Month 1- "A crazed white vigilante murdered an innocent, angelic boy!". Then it turned out that Martin wasn't so innocent or angelic, and was for all practical purposes a man, not a boy. Zimmerman was also revealed to be not so crazed and not so white. So that angle was dropped.
Later- "It's those awful 'Stand your Ground' laws, that's what's wrong!". But the defense didn't even need to mention that law at trial, because was totally irrelevant to the case. That line was abandoned pretty swiftly by the smart media players, though some stragglers still haven't wrapped their heads around it yet.
During the trial (after it became clear that there was no way to prove murder)- "Zimmerman recklessly provoked a confrontation, ignoring police instructions!". But police testified that he cooperated fully and followed all their instructions, and the jury subsequently agreed.
After the acquittal- "Anyone who is going to carry a deadly weapon should be more careful, and more knowledgeable!" i.e., GZ was a little bit of a bumbling incompetent, which is more-or-less true.
This kind of "outrage distillation" is common when the press push a bull***t narrative and then discover that they were mostly wrong. The can't continue lying, but they can focus the same amount of anger and opprobrium onto smaller and smaller sins.
Posts
61 comments:
But it isn't distillation. Distillation would make the outrage more pure and powerful. IN this case it just makes it weaker. This would be more like "outrage dillution".
Well, it would in a sane world. I guess people are getting more and more upset. I'm personally waiting for Nancy Grace to refer to Zimmerman as a Spic while ranting and raving about the fucking coons. I'm half-way there!
...
Also, I think the most important thing to note is that Sailer's idea that the worst crime in the world these days is NOTICING THINGS. The NAACP made a call over the week-end for outlawing ALL profiling. I'd almost like to see that happen. It would be interesting to see what would happen to, say, University admissions when the admission administrators could no longer profile by race, or neighborhood, or prior schools attended, or grades, or test scores....
It almost makes me want to see that law pass - I think it would be both bracing and edifying it its effects. Also incredibly stupid, but that goes without saying.
That's what I predicted would happen after a not-guilty verdict, but to be honest, I really don't see it. I still see mostly crazy, over-the-top, bad faith rhetoric on both sides, from the white and black race hustlers as well as from all the little people like us. But it's getting old already, so I've stopped reading the race hustlers on this one (except for Steve Sailer, of course!).
To me, the news is that one commentator is writing honest, good-faith analysis: Ta-Nehisi Coates. I think he's by far the best commentator on this story - in fact, one of only a handful of not-awful commentators. (No, I don't agree with every word he's written on it.) Other "intellectual" black liberals, like Melissa Harris-Parry, are just going into full-on race hustling mode. Coates can get pretty emotional and carried away himself sometimes, so this is a really pleasant surprise.
Great post. Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car."), and can't getting out of his car after slowly following a pedestrian be construed as "provoking a confrontation"? If Martin grew up in a bad neighborhood, he might have made a reasonable assumption that someone following him wanted to murder or rape him, in which case it could make sense to get the jump on the stalker.
In all likelihood, neither GZ nor TM is legally or ethically at fault. GZ was dumb to get out of his car, and if he thought TM had criminal intentions, this makes it especially idiotic to get out and wander around looking for such a person: possibly armed, possibly teamed up, possibly ready to ambush.
The[y] can't continue lying
Yes they can. Si se puede.
Icepick, a law against "ALL" profiling would mean all profiling of blacks and Latinos. This could be used to reduce disparities in incarceration of blacks vs non-blacks: On the one hand, there would be many crimes that blacks and Latinos simply couldn't commit by virtue of their race. On the other hand, many offenses that are now considered minor could become major crimes.
Consider vandalism, theft, bar fights, almost anything: Whenever victims are black/Latino, and especially if offenders are white, lawyers who specialize in "profiling" will look for ways to get involved.
This is part of the slow transvertal of the GZ/TM issue from a race question to a 2A question. Official America has to milk this issue for something. ("Moms Demand Action" trolls are showing up at Trayvon rallies in St. Louis, ironic, because Trayvons are responsible for most of the "gun violence.)
If they're not going to get any legislation, at least they can send out fundraising letters. I saw on Breitbart that some white liberal woman named Tammy speaking at a Trayvon rally in Portland, Oregon demanded that people absolves themselves of "white supremacy" by donating to the Southern Poverty Law Center. She must work for the SPLC.
There was also demand inflation. At the beginning, it was "We just want an investigation", then "We just want an arrest", to "We just want a prosecution" to "We just want a conviction". Somehow, the standard for justice kept going up as the justification for each successive step kept falling apart.
The commenter writes:
Later- "It's those awful 'Stand your Ground' laws, that's what's wrong!". But the defense didn't even need to mention that law at trial, because was totally irrelevant to the case. That line was abandoned pretty swiftly by the smart media players, though some stragglers still haven't wrapped their heads around it yet.
I respond:
The NAACP knows that SYG didn't apply here. The reason they're working up in a lather over it, and the reason why the loudest stuck pig squealing when SYG and Castle Doctrine are proposed in state legislatures are those legislatures' black cauci is because they know blacks disproportionately commit the kinds of crimes relevant to the use of SYG and CD. Even though the law is race neutral on its face, it has a "disparate impact" on blacks.
Likewise, murder being a crime at all has a disparate impact on blacks.
"isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions "
Yes, it is disputed.
Z saw M run and got out of his car. The police dispatcher asked if he was following him, and said "we don't need you to do that." Z responded "OK" and lost sight of M.
The suggestion of the dispatcher carries absolutely no weight; it wasn't phrased in the form of an order, and even if it was it has no force. The dispatcher on the line said exactly that at the trial.
Second, Z obeyed the instruction in any case. He said "OK" and lost sight of M. He then looked for an address while staying on the line with the dispatcher, and arranged to meet the responding officer.
The physical evidence strongly points to M circling back and attacking Z after Z ended his call to the dispatcher. M was seconds away from where he was staying; he could have strolled there. The most likely scenario is M getting upset about a snitch, and attacking him.
Aside from the "white" bit, there's still countless people who believe the story of month 1, and will likely continue to until the day they die.
By the way, you forgot this one- when it became undeniable that there was an extended altercation and that Zimmerman was injured, I've heard many blacks say "he a pussy who jus mad he got he ass beat by a teen!" as to why he shot him.
That's just what happens when it is all Who? Whom? all the time. You need to keep moving your justification to find new ways to be on your guy's side if your guy is wrong.
You say all this.
I say: "But he murdered a child!"
You'll come back with some sort of rational counter-argument.
My answer: "Killed a child!"
You reply.
Me: "Killed a child!"
Rinse repeat. Racist.
That is pretty standard for arguing with lefties about anything. They may begin outraged at Senseless Gun Violence,arguing for total gun bans bans, but they end up being whittled down to outrage at the lead in bullets.
Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car."),
No, no, no. For the 10,000th time.
Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that that he had gotten out of his car to monitor Trayvon, and the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that".
Zimmerman claims that he then turned to go back to his car, and was confronted by Trayvon on the way back.
The new goalpost seems to be that conservatives are racist for expecting riots. Nevermind that the expectation of riots seems to come mostly from taking some of the goofier elements of the "People of Color" community at their word.
But you might as well just laugh. Thus far the media has lost utterly on this one and they are flailing in anger.
The Zimmerman hysteria has become a vendetta.
Blood lust for a revenge lynching has consumed the left.
Zimmerman is the source of all evil!
Just for laughs: Does one Zimmerman (Bob) bracket the start of the great and holy Civil Rights Crusade and the other Zimmerman (George) bracket the corrupt and degraded end?
"Great post. Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car."), and can't getting out of his car after slowly following a pedestrian be construed as "provoking a confrontation"?"
No, and I'm surprised you'd be posting here with thinking this. "We don't need you to do that" isn't an order, he replied with "ok", dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders, and that same dispatcher testified this in court. And while Zimmerman was stupid to get out of his car since he was endangering himself from the outset, that isn't illegal.
what i noticed is that law is only settled if it's settled to the liberals or cultural marxist's satisfaction.
DOMA, signed into effect by a democrat president no less, was the law of the land for 17 years.
think PPACA could just randomly be struck down by a supreme court in 2029? 2012 + 17 = 2029. PPACA will have been the law of the land for 17 years.
think that's likely to happen? i'd say PPACA is set in stone already. that it will be the law of the united states for the rest of its existence.
seems to be that way for any absolutely terrible laws (without specific expiration dates written into the language) which liberals or cultural marxists manage to pass. and now, even explicitly written expiration dates don't deter them much.
the often used soccer analogy is appropriate. the conservatives defend attack after attack until the liberals put the ball in the goal one time, then the entire contest is considered over and settled for forever. quite an interesting game, when one team can score a few goals here or there, but the other team can not only remove those goals from the scoreboard, but if they themselves score one time, the game is called.
in a few years the liberals and cultural marxists will resume their unrelenting attacks on the 2nd amendment, and within a few decades, after demographic change has irrevocably altered the US and given the democrats hegemony, they will permanently disarm the united states. "district of columbia versus heller" will not be considered settled law.
Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car."), and can't getting out of his car after slowly following a pedestrian be construed as "provoking a confrontation"?
First, he wasn't speaking to a police officer, but a civilian working for the emergency lines. Second, when Zimmerman said to that person that he had gotten out of his car, the operator said, "We don't need you to do that."
So Zimmerman was already out of his car, he was not told to stay in his car, he was just told "We don't need you to do that."
As for provoking a confrontation, Martin had already made it back to the house he was staying in, and then doubled back to confront Zimmerman.
Finally, Zimmerman has every right to walk around in his own neighborhood. I can't understand people that think that Martin had every right to go where ever he wanted, but that George Zimmerman had NO RIGHTS to walk in public places in his own neighborhood.
@Ichabod Crane:
Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car."), and can't getting out of his car after slowly following a pedestrian be construed as "provoking a confrontation"?
The answer to both questions is a resounding "No".
First, a 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman "We don't need you to follow" Martin. 911 dispatchers are not police officers, nor do police officers have the authority to order you not to walk around your own neighborhood.
Second, being followed does not give you the right to jump someone and begin beating them up. And it certainly doesn't give the right to escalate the assault by pinning them to the ground (where they can't escape) as you continue to violently beat them.
The public manifestations so far are nothing. You see more packing Times Square at 7am when a Miley Cyrus android is scheduled to perform. U.S. urban discontent ain't what it used to be
This argument about how the 'child' Trayvon Martin was scared that he might be raped by the man George Zimmerman is among the most ludicrous arguments presented.
I was also 6'3" when I was seventeen. I had had fights at school when I was only 5'8" or so. But I out grew fighting that year when I grew five inches. No one picked on me after I got to be about 6'2". I'm told the same thing happens to elephants. They are easy prey as juveniles but there comes day when they have simply outgrown all their threats.
I knew all about gay predators too. But they were another problem I had outgrown. Even in San Francisco I never worried about being groped by gay guys. I was too big. A lot of gay bashing I suspect comes from gays coming onto a straight guy who is stronger than he looks.
Unlike me, who enjoyed the immunity to aggression that size brought me, Trayvon Martin seemed to have exploited his recent growth in size by getting into a lot of fights.
So the idea that big strong experienced street fighter Martin, would be afraid that this little soft and pudgy Hispanic guy might be trying to rape him, is silly beyond words. We know from his tweets that Martin was proud of his reputation as a scrapper, if anything worthwhile can be guessed about his emotional state, it is more likely that he saw Zimmerman as a felicitous opportunity to add to his catalog of battered opponents.
Who could possibly fear George Zimmerman? The testimony seems to support the view that Zimmerman himself was afraid. He knew from his martial arts fiasco that he was not a match for most of the men he was likely to encounter in his community watch adventures. I think he said to someone that that was why he needed more guns.
The prosecutor I'm told said the word 'child' seventeen times in his closing rebuttal. He tried to weave a tale of the 'child' being frightened by the 'man'. But that line of argument was undercut by the presence of Zimmerman in the courtroom.
Zimmerman the Hispanic nebbish.
Albertosaurus
Actually, I think the worst offender in this whole affair -- far worse than Martin, the prosecution, the state or the "no justice; no peace" crowd --is the media.
These fearless seekers of the truth and impartial speakers-of-truth-to-power, did their damndest to send a man to prison for life --where he would almost certainly have been murdered by his "fellow" inmates -- on pretty much zero evidence.
To call them a lynch mob is unfair only in that they proved to be an incompetent lynch mob (so far).
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Rachel Jeantel and all the other "no justice; no peace" crowd simply acted according to type.
But the media? I think there's more evidence to affix the label "attempted murder" on them than on Trayvon Martin.
And if something does befall Zimmerman, it's no longer "attempted". It's murder. They've painted a target on his back.
"GZ was a little bit of a bumbling incompetent, which is more-or-less true."
Really?
I wonder if the commentor who wrote that would have preferred to have his head bashed into the pavement, repeatedly with no sign at all at any abatement.
Maybe he should just lie down and gladly accept permanent brain damage or worse, lest he be deemed 'incompetent'.
The level of idiocy displayed is awesome, in the original meaning of the word.
Now, the BIG NEWS is Zimmerman is getting his gun back.
OH MY, he's gonna go killing again!!!!!
Too bad the media never had its camera taken away for destroying a man's life. They commit murder to man's reputation.
"I still see mostly crazy, over-the-top, bad faith rhetoric on both sides, from the white and black race hustlers as well as from all the little people like us."
Don't gimme this moral equivalence BS.
It's the MSM that fouled up this issue. Most conservatives have been very responsible with this issue.
. But it's getting old already, so I've stopped reading the race hustlers on this one (except for Steve Sailer, of course!)
Way way way way wait a second there, Mr Gross. Are you really calling Mr Sailer a race hustler. Are you really doing that? And how about including his analysis over the past yr regarding the Trayvon-Zimmerman case? Been pretty solid overall.
Also, notice how quiet it's been compared to post-Rodney King verdict. Haven't been any major rioting. Wondering if that is due to abundance of smart phones, digital recordings and social media which can instantly catch the perps in action so to speak whereas 20 yrs ago it was more difficult to do so.
But overall, have to admit the "rioting" has been tame. Imagine caucasians rioting because a high profile case did not go according to their expectations. We can't because it hasn't happened since, well....the South seceding from the Union 'cause they didnt want Lincoln to be Pres.
Since then, white folks don't generally riot, burn down cities, loot, rob, steal etc. That's really not a white thing. You move on, like mature responsible adults.
I can't believe how "sticky" the lies have become: Let me say it LOUDLY this time: the police NEVER told George to stay in his car. It never happened. its a lie. In fact, Sean, the Non-emergency number dispatcher said things to Zimmerman like this:
Dispatcher: Just let us know if he does anything, ok.
George: How long till you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Its those statements that made George reasonably believe that he should keep on a eye on the suspect.
the whole call can be read here:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
the bit about following comes a minute later after George had gotten out of his car to keep an eye on TM.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
George: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
George: Okay.
And George never got within 100 feet of TM. Martin doubled back to attack about 4 minutes later.
To Crane - don't be lazy. Go and read the 911 transcripts and don't rely on the media BS that you are fed. There were NO police "instructions". When Zimmerman indicated that he was following Martin, the civilian operator counseled him "you don't have to do that" - meaning (correctly) that Zimmerman had no duty to intervene. This one offhand remark has been spun into some kind of flagrant disregard for a direct police order. Whatever happened to liberals not respecting police orders anyway?
It appears as if Martin circled back after their initial confrontation - he could have just gone home at that point - he was not in any danger until he attacked Zimmerman, whom he probably figured he could beat up (and he could have, maybe even killed him, if Zimmerman was not carrying).
Zimmerman's story about screaming as he was having his head pounded several times against concrete, and then pulling a gun and then shooting TM only once (right through the heart) sounds odd to me, let us not forget he has merely been given the benefit of the doubt.
We don't know what happened and probably never will. It's quite possible Zimmerman was Sunday punched once, fell back to hit his head, and then pulled out a gun. Whereupon Martin started screaming (insults or 'no don't!'). And then Zimmerman shot him.
Anyway, the next 'Zimmerman' is going to need good eye-witnesses or life threatening injuries to stand any chance of being acquitted.
"Great post. Two questions: isn't it undisputed that GZ ignored police instructions ("Stay in your car.")"
No it is not. It´s interesting that so many even on this site have been fooled by the lie campaign:
911 transcript follows:
Zimmerman: Shit, he’s running.
Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
[Sound of car door opening.]
Zimmerman: [Grunts.] Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.
[Sound of car door closing.]
Dispatcher: OK, and which entrance is that he’s heading towards.
Zimmerman: The back entrance. . . [mutters] Fucking punks
[puddles?].
[Wind/breathing noise.]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: OK.
Note the following:
1.) There is no "order", much less an order from the police. It is a suggestion from a 911 dispatcher with no force of law whatsoever (If the operator orders someone to do something, they are then strictly liable. So they avoid it.)
2.) Zimmerman was out of his car when recieving said suggestion, hence it is very unlikely that anyone told him to ("Stay in your car.").
3.) Zimmerman did not argue with it, he just said "ok". That he continued chasing Martin is conjecture.
------
Let´s also note the additional slippery moral inversion that´s going on here:
"Profiling" (I.e. using your brain) and "following" someone are now turning into heinous crimes, while clocking someone in the face because you felt followed is becoming A-ok.
It´s Liberalism in all its glory - Prosocial activity is decried as Evil, antisocial activity elevated to become the Good:
Neighbourhood watch -> "Wannabe cop / Vigilante"
Following suspicous individual and calling 911 as a neighbourhood watchman -> "Profiling".
Punch someone and keep beating them when they are on the ground -> Completely understandable.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
I thought in the beginning they were thinking Jewish, but downgraded to White, White Hispanic, and finally Hispanic.
They have moved the goal posts when it comes to the definition of racism. In 1965 it used to mean outright government action creating race hierarchies. "You!... sit in the back of the bus."
Now racism means merely 'noticing race' BUT only if you are white. All other groups, even La Raza(THE RACE) can notice race with impunity, actually these groups, and groups like the NAACP, notice race ad nauseam.
I think all this unending ginning up of the race talk about Zimmerman is because the Libs WANT the blacks to riot. That is the lever the left has historically used to tacitly push the right into going along legislating Affirmative Action and Federal Government contract set asides(13 CFR 103.124). Remember the Diversity Recession?If they own it they won't burn it.
But now if the blacks don't burn something down and kill at least 25 people, no one will listen to them anymore.
They need to show some menace to get some respect.
Incidentally I had just started sipping on my blueberry pomegranate smoothie in one of the darker McDonalds in Richmond,Va at exactly 10pm Sat nite. Checking out the tube, I noticed a young Momma with a couple of kids cluck clucking at the tube. Whoah...bad timing. I skedaddled respectfully out the door before I had gotten down to the Pomegranate in the smoothie.
Forget about Zimmerman, is this the next GWD?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-76-stand-trial-shooting-killing-black-13-year-old-neighbor-article-1.1399107
Unfortunately, it looks like this guy may be a genuine nut, which puts a damper on the racism angle.
A few days after my wife and I moved to LA in 2011, our bikes were stolen off our patio while we were lying in bed. We couldn't sleep through the night for months after that: I kept jumping out of bed any time I heard a truck idling in the driveway below our bedroom window, hoping I could read the license plate this time; this would wake up my wife, who would ask me to calm down and come back to bed. Though frustrated and tense, I would oblige.
Based on that experience, I was surprised to learn that Zimmerman is married.
I thought in the beginning they were thinking Jewish, but downgraded to White, White Hispanic, and finally Hispanic.
Jewish? I never heard that. If they thought he was a Jew this would never have made it past local news.
Maybe if they move 'em far enough, they'll score an own goal. Kind of like digging a hole to China. Sort of.
Anyway, now that this has been pointed out to them, I'm sure they'll stop it.
Most often when a black is wrongly killed/injured by whites, he was in the process of committing a crime,e.g., Rodney King . The appeal of this case is the black was actually minding his own business, at least initially.
I wonder if Zimmerman can sue the NAACP, feds, CNN, etc.? They've guaranteed he can never work again.
My proximate assumption is that in the eyes of black people, the circumstances here are quite simple: a young member of their tribe was killed by someone outside of the tribe, and that person is not being punished (or at least, not as much as they are convinced a member of their own tribe would be). The details (about who started it, who was in the right, etc.) are merely ornaments to this basic set of circumstances.
Many white people have trouble grasping this because to them the "tribe" isn't a very important denominator, if one at all, while details are of extreme importance. So, they must invent these sophisticated narratives that shift and change as the dissemination of new information confounds and complicates the narrative.
Defusing the angry black people requires not a rehashing of the details, but a rebranding of Zimmerman to show that he is certainly not a racist and that the worst offender here is the mainstream media who continue to exploit blacks for power while treating them as children. To some extent, the "alternative" conservative media (including Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter, etc.) have done this, though it would be nice if the wider scope of the conservative media followed suit.
Anonymous said: "Forget about Zimmerman, is this the next GWD?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-76-stand-trial-shooting-killing-black-13-year-old-neighbor-article-1.1399107"
Not likely. The old man is being charged with 1st degree murder which, if the facts of the case are as written, is certainly deserved.
I live in Miami (home of St. Trayvon) and have talked to a number of blacks (very carefully) about this case, including this morning. The blacks I've talked to are either older males (50+, mostly public employees) or mixed race (e.g. half Jamaican/half white) males. Not a perfect cross-section of black America.
They’re mostly angry that Zimmermann isn’t going to be punished. When asked “what should he be/have been charged with?” they don’t have a ready answer. One older man said “Trayvon was from the ‘hood. He hasn’t been taught how to deal with shit like that. ‘Hood people don’t think like that”. I pointed out that it is incumbent on “hood” people to learn how to behave out of the ‘hood, it isn’t non-‘hood people’s responsibility to adjust to them. I also said that if his view that Martin had no idea how to behave around “non-hood” people is correct, then Martin’s parents failed him greatly and are partially to blame for his death. If Martin continued to go through life behaving as if he was in the ‘hood, he’d have been inevitably killed or incarcerated. He just shook his head and said “it’s a tragedy”. I asked him if he knew that approximately 11,000 blacks have been murdered since Martin was shot. He said he had no idea. I asked him if that bothered him as much as Martin’s death and if not, why not? He replied “I don’t know what to think”.
As far as I can tell, younger black males seem to genuinely believe they should be able to attack whites with impunity and not have there be consequences. Most seem to believe when pressed that Martin initiated the confrontation, however that he had every right to do so. When I told one that all Martin had to do to avoid being shot was to not violently attack a stranger he responded with a litany of the usual things Zimmerman did wrong – profiling, “dissing”, etc. I told him that his rationale was precisely why I carry a firearm most of the time: I don’t know all the black rules about how to avoid being attacked and have no interest in learning. He just looked at me quizzically.
I suppose it’s not surprising that younger blacks expect society to confirm to their hair-trigger tempers and convoluted rationale for when violence is acceptable: they’re constantly taught about how they’ve been wronged. Also popular culture is constantly peddling a watered down version of ghetto culture (the real thing would be too appalling for suburban kids to process).
The other day, I saw a rather poignant tweet. It said that the biggest threat to public safety from the Zimmerman acquittal wasn't the threat of black mob violence, it was the threat of more George Zimmermans.
Its a good point. A mob smashes out of blind rage and anger. A single individual kills with purpose.
Demographically speaking, black 17 year old boys are probably the most dangerous person in our society. All of this "He's a child" bs is strictly for the rubes.
countenance said...
Likewise, murder being a crime at all has a disparate impact on blacks.
Yes. And that was really what this trial was about: making the standards lower to convict a white, or person that can be cast as white, of murdering a black. The elite must find a way to make the white-on-black crime rates more in line with black-on-white crime rates. They have a lot of work to do!
BTW, I wonder this arrest handled in terms of official police or FBI crime stats? Was it put on the books as white-on-black, Hispanic-on-black or mixed-race-on-black? I would suspect the first.
Jewish? I never heard that. If they thought he was a Jew this would never have made it past local news.
Maybe that's why Alan Dershowitz has come out in favor of this verdict and has been trashing the prosecution, especially Angela Corey. She certainly deserves the excoriation in any case.
Remember when whites poured into the streets to protest the OJ verdict?
I don't either.
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/20056
Off-topic but an interesting discussion between a philosopher and a psychologist. At 56min they discuss the implicit attitudes of people who work with minorities (often surprisingly strong). They dance around a bit before concluding at 60min that "Sometimes the socially unaccepatable view is true"
WIS. MAN FACES TRIAL FOR SHOOTING TEENAGE NEIGHBOR
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/wis-man-faces-trial-shooting-teen-neighbor
I wonder how the reaction to this case might be different if Trayvon had said something like, "Yeah, some faggot-ass cracker be following me!" To which Rachel Jeantel might have responded, "He probably a rapist."
"We don't know what happened and probably never will. It's quite possible Zimmerman was Sunday punched once, fell back to hit his head, and then pulled out a gun. Whereupon Martin started screaming (insults or 'no don't!'). And then Zimmerman shot him"
Horseshit. The forensic pathologist stated that when the bullet traversed, TM's shirt was hanging AWAY from the front of TM's chest. That can only happen if TM is bent over frontwards.
Since the bullet entered the chest, not the back, or the head, etc., that means George was UNDER TM and TM was OVER him. Which means TM was either leaning forward pounding him -- or what? looking in Z's shirt pocket for skittles? LOL
Steve, at least some race hustlers are back tracking, using the verdict as a wedge against CCW laws and stand your ground laws. One on HLN actually stated that these laws actually account for a disparate number of Black "victims." That is, if Whites are allowed to defend themselves, there are bound to be a lot of dead and wounded Black criminals. I realize that this idiot didn't realize the magnitude of his statement against interest encoded in his remark. I wish I could remember exactly who made this statement.
So this is what its all about. In order for us to achieve a truly post racial society, White citizens must be disarmed or intimidated against self defense.
" I asked him if he knew that approximately 11,000 blacks have been murdered since Martin was shot. He said he had no idea."
LOL, yeah, and roughly 100,000 whites have been murdered since Nicole Brown Simpson so I guess you are ready to forgive and forget?
They had to change the narrative because the original script was so factually wrong but unfortunately the emotional power of the story all came at the beginning and is still running.
Here's a picture of Trayvon Martin on the night of the killing.
http://media2.wptv.com//photo/2013/05/22/TM711_4_20130522123142_640_480.PNG
You can see from the size of him that self-defense is a physically plausible plea. The pictures the media use where he is much younger and smaller make a self-defense plea seem ridiculous for a man Zimmerman's size.
That impression which the media deliberately planted in people's minds directly and negatively effected Zimmerman's chance of a fair trial.
As well as suing CNN for doctoring the tape i hope he can sue every paper and TV station for using the baby pictures.
.
@Ichabod Crane
You seem to like using archaic anglo names for your meme poisoning. Why is that do you think?
@Aaron Gross
"But it's getting old already, so I've stopped reading the race hustlers on this one (except for Steve Sailer, of course!)"
Aren't you a race hustler?
.
pat
"So the idea that big strong experienced street fighter Martin, would be afraid that this little soft and pudgy Hispanic guy might be trying to rape him, is silly beyond words."
I don't think you fully get the whole gay-bashing thing. If you're a tough kid you don't attack them because you think they're going to rape you, you attack them because the whole idea of a man coming on to you freaks you out and you have a very restricted range when expressing displeasure.
JSM wrote "Horseshit. The forensic pathologist stated that when the bullet traversed, TM's shirt was hanging AWAY from the front of TM's chest. That can only happen if TM is bent over frontwards."
I agree with the general sentiment here that Martin was either the aggressor or at least very complicit in his own demise, but his hoodie could have been a few inches off his skin if he were violently tumbling, stumbling backwards. In violent action clothing can bellow or be pulled away in an number of ways.
A bit off topic but Rod Dreher is taking the usual beating for quoting you in his Zimmerman post today. I always get a kick out of this as he keeps referring to you, knowing this enrages his fan club of precious souls, inadequates, amateur theologians.
Can this be masochism or just a cunning way of ginning up blog hits?
Demographically speaking, black 17 year old boys are probably the most dangerous person in our society. All of this "He's a child" bs is strictly for the rubes.
Anyone got a link to some statistics on this?
Anyone got a link to some statistics on this?
Chicago murder stats. (It's not nationwide, and it's urban, but indicative of a general tendency)
http://tinyurl.com/c8whyo5
For murder offenders, notice the peak at 17-18 years of age.
"Anyone got a link to some statistics on this?"
It's an interesting subject. I would expect it to follow testosterone levels more or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
"There is a sharp peak in the age distribution of murderers between the ages of 18 and 30"
and in male murder victims at least a likely symmetry in age distribution of victim and killer
"In the US, murder is the leading cause of death for African American males aged 15 to 34."
I've read elsewhere but can't recall where that ethnic groups have different testosterone patterns with blacks starting sooner but dipping earlier, whites starting later but dipping later and (East) Asians more so again.
If so each ethnic group should have their own peak murder age.
If i had to guess i'd say blacks might be around 19 and whites around 24 ish and (East) Asians a bit older than white.
Usual pattern. Mostly a guess though.
Interesting subject.
White liberals looking out for a morally-neutral way out of the black violent crime problem should look into the idea of early puberty and distinctive testosterone pattern as a cause as it possibly does have a lot to do with it.
iSteve mentioned some time ago the idea that early developers would be the jocks and the bullies at school and looking back i think he's likely correct.
If you develop early you're more aggressive - or simply more muscled so you can be aggressive and get way with it - bigger, stronger etc but also interested in girls sooner and therefore less interested in school.
Interesting topic of study - and value neutral.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
FBI stats on ages of murderers - muddied by white / hispanic thing of course but if you take the number in the 17-19 year old category as a proportion of the combined total of both the 17-19 and 20-24 categories as a very rough test then the 17-19 year old category for black is 40% of the total for black and 36% for whites so a slight indication of a younger black peak age.
Not very conclusive of that point but 20-24 as the peak age generally seems quite clear.
(Also generally adds creedence to the idea that two strikes and you're out till age 26, three strikes and you're out for good would be a lot more prison place efficient.)
Agree with Aaron Gross. I am shocked by the restraint shown by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I disagree with, but at least writes rationally.
"I am shocked by the restraint shown by Ta-Nehisi Coates"
He lives in Harlem - for now.
>murder being a crime [...] has a disparate impact on blacks<
Good point.
We need to ask Congress to abolish the law against murder. Or at least, to soften it for people of color. Honor cultures require the commission of murder with impunity sometimes, to preserve their self-esteem. We must respect every thug who comes along, and not diss him. Who are we to have a culture?
Post a Comment