posted
Believe what you want, Rakeesh. Doesn't matter to me at all.
I want to hear what actual evidence the investigators can come up with, and what they think of his story. What the actual facts say, not what Al Sharpton has to say. If you think that makes me racist, or a Dittohead, so be it.
And about 1 in 9 people in FL have a concealed carry permit. You might be surprised at how many people go grocery shopping armed....and how few problems there are despite that.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will, thanks. Your stoic disregard for unwanted opinions is noted. (That you nonetheless *mention* you don't care about, strangely, as though you were indirectly bragging or something)
What I believe is that you've thoroughly sidestepped some challenges to irate claims you've made. Such as your claim about what has been proven untrue about things casting Zimmerman in a bad light, your statement that Zimmerman was assaulted, your suggestion that we know who started the altercation, your statement that Martin was 'looking suspicious', suggesting the 911 record is a 'mixed bag'. Frankly you don't seem very interested in the facts if those sorts of questions get lumped into 'what Al Sharpton would say'.
That's just the recent stuff, though. You're probably right, though, I'm just calling yoh a racist dittohead, rather than making specific remarks in respouse to your posts.
As for weapons, I don't care how many people carry guns to the grocery store, and I'm a little baffled you seriously suggested that's some sort of claim on the good judgment of doing so. It's still stupid, unless you know of an ACTUAL THREAT at hand. But hey, yknow we should probably just trust the marksmanship and cool heads of anyone who can pass the RIGOROUS standards for a concealed permit, not to fire rounds through walls or car doors and/or bodies when they see black people 'looking suspicious'.
If you don't want this kind of bluntly skeptical, scornful response, Kwea, rethink labeling the act of being black, rained on, and wearing a hoodie as 'suspicious', or give a reason why Zimmerman's judgment is trustworthy. You've failed thoroughly to do so thus far, or even try really, since pivoting to Sharpton and witchhunts isn't actually a response.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for surprise, though: I wonder what you think the statistics are for accidental gun deaths in this country are, Kwea? That's without, by the way, throwing in the thousands that occur because a gun is to hand in, say, a nice ordinary domestic squabble. Versus how many people are saved by their own firearms, that wouldn't have been saved any other way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It never even matters WHAT the argument is about, does it?
For you, all that is needed is an argument.
I want to hear what the evidence says. I can understand why seeing someone you know walking about in your neighborhood, in the rain, in an area known for having recent break-ins could look suspicious. I hate the media bullshit and false statements (the original edit of his call, the so called experts saying he called Martin a coon, the video where everyone said "Look, no injuries!!! I told you!", just to start) that have caused this to expand to the point where I doubt the actual truth will ever be known.
I wasn't there, I don't KNEW what happened. The point is neither do you.
The only difference is that I won't speculate based on lies, 3 year old pictures of the victim, and the testimony of his girlfriend. I don't care what the press says, as they have already fueled the fire with completely false and fabricated statements.
I don't know Zimmerman, and I am probably glad I don't. But imagine if he was attacked, and acted in self defense. His life will never be the same. I know Martin's life is over, and regardless of how it happened it sucks, to say the least. There aren't any winners here.
Where did I say carrying a gun was good, or showed good judgement? YOU brought up the grocery store like it was something out of the ordinary, but the parking lots of stores are one of the easiest places to be robbed or carjacked. It is, however, a right...as long as you have a licence. I don't own a gun, although I can shoot well, have been trained well, and have every right to do so. If I do buuy one, I'll keep it at home., except when heading to the range.
But I got mugged in MD when I was in the service, and left for dead. I killed one of the 17-18 year old kids who did it, with my bare hands. Had I had a gun, maybe more of them would have died....but I wouldn't have needed a year of rehab, I wouldn't still have headaches and joint pain from where they kicked me to unconsciousness with steel toed boots. And I wouldn't have collapsed at the gate of my post and gone into cardiac arrest.
You know what my crime was??? I was walking home alone though a residential area park, wearing a hooded sweatshirt. No joke.
My NCOIC was Hispanic, and my First Sergeant was black.....and the first thing both of them said to me, at different times independently of each other was " They were Black, right?". The second thing each of them said was " Oh, then they were Hispanic?".
It was 3 middle class white kids who didn't like my Army sweatshirt, and figured I had money on me because most Soldiers usually carried cash.
Race MAY be an issue here. But it MIGHT, just MAYBE, be because someone followed someone they thought didn't belong, then the situation got out of hand. Not everything is about race, and it isn't always the white guy who is the racists. By focusing solely on race, which is what I fear may happen, we may never hear what actually happened.
So far all we know is that Zimmerman followed Martin, that he was armed, and that an altercation happened, and at the end Martin was dead. All the rest....the coon remark that wasn't, the videos that show wounds, the editing of comments to make it seem like race was a factor, all of that is beside the point, and only makes getting to the truth harder.
I know, for a fact, that there have been gross lies and misrepresentation of many things in this case, and all of it seems to have been done to make Zimmerman look like a racist guy who shot a kid in cold blood, probably in the back while standing over him, after calling him a coon.
None of which actually happened, as far as we can tell.
So go ahead, try to make it seem like I am racist. Like I think Martin should have died. That I think Martin deserved it. Whatever type of crap you want.
God knows you don't know me, and you don't seem interested in EVER arguing things in good faith with others.
It's a shame you aren't half as clever as you seem to think you are, Rakeesh. You could have this whole case solved without ever needing an actual trial. You probably already think you have.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well now that you're changing several of the things we 'know' about what happened, strangely I have much less of a beef with your post.
As for the rest, well. Kwea, there are more than a few people here in a position to criticize me for my posting style here, and you even make a good point that many times the argument is enough for me. It's a fault of mine. But you? You're certainly not one of them. So next time you decide to get really angry at me for style, remember yours here where you didn't respond or just stopped mentioning or simply started changing points.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't want this kind of bluntly skeptical, scornful response, Kwea, rethink labeling the act of being black, rained on, and wearing a hoodie as 'suspicious', or give a reason why Zimmerman's judgment is trustworthy.
According to Zimmerman, Martin was hanging out beside houses, scanning the streets and yards. He even reported this to the 911 dispatcher, I believe.
There may be an element of race to this; there has been, in my understanding, an element of racism to the way that the Sanford police handle things. But there may not be; as near as I can tell, in terms of Zimmerman's actions, the evidence is inconclusive.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There also may be an element of race involved in how Trayvon Martin responded to being followed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt Zimmerman believed Martin was suspicious. But he also thought potholes and open garage doors were emergencies. A schizophrenic thinks they hear voices when none are speaking, serious gambler may believe they're on a lucky streak, a baseball player may believe they need to wear the same socks to win, and plenty of people believe in horoscopes.
Was it right that Zimmerman regard Martin as suspicious? What's the difference, really, between 'scanning yards and houses' and 'looking around while talking on the phone'? I submit to a passerby, there IS very often no difference at all. One of the many reasons why dispatch said his following wasn't needed, why one of the first step in almost any sort of criminal activity is always 'notify police/flee' and NOT 'take matters into your own hands'.
It's entirely possible Zimmerman is one of the rare people of his generation (and this goes for any generation, it's true, though it certainly trends upwards as age increases) that can look at a black teen doing one thing and feel a level of suspicion and then feel the exact same level of suspicion of white or asian or latino teen doing the same activity. It's possible, but holy hell is it unlikely. And no, before Kwea puts some more words in my mouth, that is not a reason to convict him, obviously. Thankfully we're not in a court of law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't change crap. What I originally said is that at least some of the actual evidence that was eventually uncovered supported some of what Zimmerman said, that there was a physical altercation, he was wounded, and that he admitted following Martin but then turned back around and had the altercation near his car.
I also said he was a putz, and that his 911 log was a mixed bag AT BEST. I never said I believed all he said. I never said he should walk. I never said race wasn't a factor, just that he wasn't overtly racist as originally reported.
I'm sorry I responded to you the way I did last night though. I worked 19 hours last night, on about 5 hours sleep, and this had been a very stressful weekend for me due to family reasons (can't go into them here, but I may have just inherited a 13 year old niece) so I was tired and irritated, and I kinda lashed out at you.
Sorry about that.
Part of the disconnect may be my own posting style as well. I was posting links to things that were refuted, with no real context. I was doing it because that was what was specifically bothered me about all the uproar and media coverage, not because I thought any of it cleared Zimmerman. But a lot of people, in the media and around here where I live, near Sanford itself, had already convicted him based on false reports, minimal evidence, and edited phone calls, and I am getting tired of hearing it. I also stated he was assaulted, when what I meant to say was there was an altercation.....I don't know who assaulted who, but it is a fact that Zimmerman was injured, probably by Martin, and that means there is at least a possibility that Martin assaulted him and reached for his gun, as Zimmerman reported that night. Keep in mind, at one point a lot of people were reporting there was no physical altercation, and they pointed to a lack of wounds on Zimmerman as proof.....until the tapes were magnified, and they showed wounds, and the police looking at his wounds multiple times.
So I started posting links to evidence as it came up, and specifically all the things I found wrong with the case, because that was what was coming up at the time....a lot of the original "proof" that Zimmerman was guilty turned out to be manufactured, and not true.
It didn't mean he was innocent, but the actual proof left the door open for innocence, which is more that anyone was saying originally.
I know that if I saw a person between houses looking around at night, in the rain, I wouldn't have to be close to him to find it suspicious. I probably wouldn't even know his age, just that he was 6' tall, and I doubt I could tell his race from the corner.
Notice I said IF. I don't know if Zimmerman is telling the truth, but so far I haven't seen or heard a lot that says he isn't...so I assume he is telling at least the truth as he remembers it, until it's proven he lied.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I appreciate the apology and take it kindly. Thank you.
Now that said, you did change some things or at least initially say they were one way and then just...leave off mentioning them. Perhaps this was a result of posting after a long day-it's certainly happened to me.
Examples:
quote:He wasn't. Zimmerman went back to his car, and Martin followed him back and confronted him. No one is even bother to argue that, even with all the other blatant lies and prejudices going on. (This is not clear, it's not a given, it's in dispute.)
I was pointing out the fact that as more and more events are uncovered, so far EVERYTHING Zimmerman has said has at least some basis in fact. He didn't call anyone a coon, didn't chase and corner Martin (because the altercation happened near his freaking car), he was assaulted and did have wounds to prove it. His 911 tape was edited specifically to make him sound racist, the video that everyone claimed showed no injuries actually DID show injuries, the medical report and the police report showed he had injuries, and he had grass stains on his freaking BACK. (In fact, not everything Zimmerman has said has had 'at least some basis in fact'. Everything he has said COULD, so far, have happened, but that's as far as any of it goes. We don't know if he was assaulted, and the fact that the body wasn't near his car doesn't point definitively one way or another towards who chased whom.)
Martin was not the 14 year old angel his parents claimed he was, and he was over 6 foot tall and weighed between 160 and 170. He was creeping around in the rain, with his hood pulled over his head, looking suspicious. (This is, in fact, enormously subjective, that he was 'creeping around' and 'looking suspicious', and furthermore for all that he wasn't an angel, so far nobody has pointed to a history of violence on his part.)
Did he deserve to die? No. Is Zimmerman an idiot? Probably. But we don't know what happened, which is why we need a freaking investigation, not a witch hunt. (This contradicts several things you said above. You say we don't know what happened, and yet repeatedly you have made statements as though the truth is known. Perhaps you sounded more emphatic than you were, though, I can't say.)
More than half the things said ABOUT him have been proven to be complete crap. (How do you come by this figure, 'more than half'?)
Now I post these things not to bludgeon you with them, though I can understand how it might seem that way and I apologize for it, but to point out why I responded to you the way I did. You're sending some VERY mixed signals in your posts on this subject, and I was responding to that. I see for example that you revise what you said about 'assault', but it came up in several of those quotes now, and this window is tiny, so please don't take those the wrong ways.
quote:I know that if I saw a person between houses looking around at night, in the rain, I wouldn't have to be close to him to find it suspicious. I probably wouldn't even know his age, just that he was 6' tall, and I doubt I could tell his race from the corner.
Notice I said IF. [Big Grin] I don't know if Zimmerman is telling the truth, but so far I haven't seen or heard a lot that says he isn't...so I assume he is telling at least the truth as he remembers it, until it's proven he lied.
It would depend entirely on just how 'between' houses he was. Was he, for example, walking along a commonly used but not technically legal path alongside the backs of houses? For example, in my neighborhood here are deep drainage ditches running throughout the area, and many of the homes are built on the usual lots, with quite a bit of land behind where their property ends before the sharp dip into the deep (15-20', I'd say) ditch begins at roughly a...45* angle or so. Sometimes people have fences marking their property, but other times for aesthetic's sake they mow the grass all the way back. Now technically nobody is supposed to walk back there, but it can be quite a short cut too. I've done it, and many people I know have as well.
I don't mention this to say Martin was doing this, but to offer an example of how 'between houses' may in fact be very much in question as far as 'suspicious' goes. As for the rain...well, unless it had been raining for hours and hours, like say there was a hurricane or a troopical storm on, I wouldn't think it was remarkable at all to find someone walking in the rain. Sometimes people get, y'know, caught out of the weather. Seriously, dude, the WEATHER makes Martin more likely to be suspicious? Rain in Florida in February? Really? As for his race, well, Zimmerman surely could.
But all of it comes back to this, for me, and I think it's so relevant that I'll keep bringing it up: a lot of Zimmerman's story depends on his judgment. Was it reasonable for him to have regarded Martin as suspicious, or not? Given that his judgment is so key to things, it's necessary to examine it. I didn't then and don't now see how anyone can look at the decidedly NOT mixed bag of his 911 calls and trust in his judgment over what was a serious, important situation or not! And then after calling 911, one of the times he may actually have been supposed to, he...well, he doesn't have to listen to him. Martin is just SO suspicious all looking around and creeping and stuff.
I think that if you look back on this thread, you won't find much of anyone saying he's flat-out lying, but quite a lot of heavy skepticism that things were as he actually saw them that night. That's a very different thing.
He's not trustworthy as far as judgment is concerned, and what's the worst about this law is that it defaults not to 'we need to find out what happened here', but 'we need to find out what this person THINKS happened here, and the dead guy, well, he's dead, he doesn't get a slice of this action'. It's a crappy law. Zimmerman should not have been where he was, doing what he did. And Kwea, I'll match you the edited 911 call which was promptly noticed and withdrawn (though the apology on NBC's part left a lot to be desired) with a 'well of course he was suspicious' and 'empty pot bag means dangerous' and so on and so forth. To say nothing of 'that's my son's voice' and then, hey, NOT his son's voice. Throw in a region where y'know it's just sometimes really not good to be black and dealing with the law or courts, and hey, Zimmerman ain't getting such a bad friggin' rap. There's a reason he gets a bad rap, and it's not because people are just eager to seize on cries of racism and throw fuel on the fire. Man, if that were true, crime news would look SO different in this country.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There also may be an element of race involved in how Trayvon Martin responded to being followed.
I don't know about that-- his reaction (to run) isn't necessarily racial so much as it is the reaction of a kid who thinks he's being pursued. (And completely justified, if not necessarily the smartest thing to do.)
Is that the reaction you were talking about, kmboots?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There also may be an element of race involved in how Trayvon Martin responded to being followed.
I don't know about that-- his reaction (to run) isn't necessarily racial so much as it is the reaction of a kid who thinks he's being pursued. (And completely justified, if not necessarily the smartest thing to do.)
Is that the reaction you were talking about, kmboots?
Yes. If there was an altercation (and it is looking more and more like there was although we have no way to know who started it) different cultural norms/miscommunication/aggression towards the "other" of both sides could have escalated it. A white kid might have been more likely to call the cops himself if he was being followed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing to bear in mind when we are judging the fuss and overreaction of the media and how that gets in the way of the investigation is that there was no reaction from the media at all until a month after the incident. And nothing much happening by way of investigation. This kid slid beneath the waves almost unnoticed until people started to make a fuss. That, I think, is the real racial issue here. If not for his parents this would be yet another dead black kid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd hardly call a week later promptly, you know.
And I disagree with your assessment of his 911 calls. Sure, some of them were unwarranted, but he has actually protected some people and stopped a few robberies in progress. Mind you, I am NOT saying l respect his judgement, but it's not all been bad, which to me is pretty much the definition of "mixed bag"....YMMV, of course.
As far as half....I have heard, from multiple national new sources, 1. No evidence or a physical altercation...false 2. He called Martin a coon and this tape PROVE it....false 3. This video shows he was lying about a fight ....false 4. He chased and cornered him ....false, in that he stated he was heading back to his car, and moments later the fight happened EXACTLY where he said he was heading to, his car. 5. His left with his gun, the police didn't even take it ....FALSE, they took it.
These statements don't even take into consideration the misleading photo's on Martin his parents released, leading people to believe this was some kid..... the pics were from 3 years PRIOR to this night. It doesn't involve the initial statements that Zimmerman was white, not Hispanic. It doesn't even touch how his family tried to make Martin seem like a normal kid with no behavior problems, rather than a kid who was suspended 3 times, once from drugs.
The fact is that Zimmerman saw a 6' tall person doing what he believed was casing house, in a high crime area, at night, with a hood up in the rain. I'd be suspicious too, and might even follow them in my car while calling 911. Most people walking in the rain want to get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
Suspicious doesn't mean Martin was actually doing anything wrong. But it does mean it might need investigated.
The problem starts here. While Zimmerman made bad choices, nothing I have heard from this point shows he violated the law. He followed on foot....not smart, but legal. Once he was told to return to his car, he did, as far as we can tell so far. Once again, legal. Then he was approached by Martin at nor near the car.
If anything Zimmerman says from this point on is true, then he had every right to shoot Martin. He had as much right to be there as Martin did. He had a legal permit for his gun. If he was assaulted, and felt in danger, he has a right to defend himself.
They both seem like idiots. Unfortunately being a moron isn't illegal.
Neither one were angels, they both seem to have made some really bad choices. But if Martin (notice I said if) came back to Zimmerman, he made the dumbest choice of all. By everything we have now, had Martin just kept going rather than turn back to Zimmerman, he would be alive.
If I had a dude following me, and I wasn't doing anything wrong, I'd call my parents, then the police if he wouldn't leave me alone. Hell, I would go knock on a door, or head to a public place. I find the fact that Martin didn't to be a little suspicious myself....even though I admit he was under no obligation to do so.
If I send mixed signals about this....good! I have very mixed feelings about it. I am sad a kid died. I am sad that a man's life is at risk for possibly only making a bad choice and then defending himself (bounty anyone?). I understand why his parents feel like they are getting screwed, but I also see people jumping to judge based on false and misleading info, and it seems like all of the misinformation either comes from Martin's camp or is slanted against Zimmerman to inflame popular opinion.
I support gun ownership, at least in part because of my own personal history of being mugged, yet I don't own one myself despite being very well trained in their use, specifically because I am afraid of using it and then regretting it for the rest of my life.
I had nightmares for a decade, no joke, after being mugged. Most of them were about the kid who died. Yet all I had done was defend myself, AFTER trying to run away. I can only imagine what Zimmerman feels right now, even if only half his story is true. No one doubted me, except my sergent, who literally said " Funny how every soldier who gets jumped says " I got one of them real good", when usually they didn't"...but I had used my hands, not a gun. I was walking alone at night, in my Army PT top....a grey hoodie. EVERYONE is doubting Zimmerman (myself included), so imagine how alone he feels right now.
But I don't see many people thinking about that at all, either.
posted
Was it a week later? The edited tape being released and then noticed, that is. I didn't follow that news story, since I was a bit deeper in the ongoing information than that coverage went, so I didn't pay much attention. If it was, then sure, not promptly...though certainly quite a bit faster than the story become prominent as a whole, though:)
quote: And I disagree with your assessment of his 911 calls. Sure, some of them were unwarranted, but he has actually protected some people and stopped a few robberies in progress. Mind you, I am NOT saying l respect his judgement, but it's not all been bad, which to me is pretty much the definition of "mixed bag"....YMMV, of course. [Big Grin]
Here's the thing. You know what's necessary to stop most robberies in progress, or just before they begin? Well, a lot of things actually, but one almost guaranteed stake through the heart is if you're about to slip the crowbar in the bottom of the window, and then you hear a car pull up and see a guy talking on a cell phone while looking straight at you. He doesn't have to say anything at all to you in fact, or even approach you. So, yes, I have no doubt he did some good in his community. That was a given side-effect of his poor judgment and paranoia. It would be as if a doctor treated every head cold with strong antibiotics as soon as the sniffles set in. Absolutely, colds would go down! Pretty poor judgment, though.
quote:As far as half....I have heard, from multiple national new sources, 1. No evidence or a physical altercation...false 2. He called Martin a coon and this tape PROVE it....false 3. This video shows he was lying about a fight ....false 4. He chased and cornered him ....false, in that he stated he was heading back to his car, and moments later the fight happened EXACTLY where he said he was heading to, his car. 5. His left with his gun, the police didn't even take it ....FALSE, they took it.
I don't deny there is quite a bit of stuff out there that has turned out not to be true-not unlike any other breaking, developing crime news story. But you went further than saying 'a lot'.
quote: These statements don't even take into consideration the misleading photo's on Martin his parents released, leading people to believe this was some kid..... the pics were from 3 years PRIOR to this night. It doesn't involve the initial statements that Zimmerman was white, not Hispanic. It doesn't even touch how his family tried to make Martin seem like a normal kid with no behavior problems, rather than a kid who was suspended 3 times, once from drugs.
He was 'some kid'. 17 ain't old enough to buy booze or vote, and it's barely enough to drive. Zimmerman is what is often called 'white Hispanic', and in fact to many people he would look white. There's even a tag on the census that says 'non-Hispanic white' or somesuch, if I'm not mistaken. As far as his history, we've been over this. He was suspended three times? That means he's likely to just attack someone with sudden, aggressive, brutal violence? Please. And are you *seriously* going to put the screws to his parents for trying to make their son who was on his way home from a convenience store like he was a 'normal' kid? It's statements like these, Kwea, that prompt some of the reactions you're getting.
quote:The fact is that Zimmerman saw a 6' tall person doing what he believed was casing house, in a high crime area, at night, with a hood up in the rain. I'd be suspicious too, and might even follow them in my car while calling 911. Most people walking in the rain want to get from point A to point B as fast as possible.
Again. This is ANOTHER example of you buying Zimmerman's line straightaway. When Zimmerman saw Martin, was he in fact just skulking in the rainy shadows, leering at property? Well, sure, Zimmerman says he was. What else CAN he say? A body's laid out on the ground.
quote:Suspicious doesn't mean Martin was actually doing anything wrong. But it does mean it might need investigated.
The problem starts here. While Zimmerman made bad choices, nothing I have heard from this point shows he violated the law. He followed on foot....not smart, but legal. Once he was told to return to his car, he did, as far as we can tell so far. Once again, legal. Then he was approached by Martin at nor near the car.
How do you know these things? How do you know when and under what circumstances he went to go back into his car? How do you know at what point Martin approached him, if he did at all? What is your evidence? This is about the third time you've referenced these things as though they were to be taken for granted, and you've been asked more than once to point to what substantiates that belief in Zimmerman's account. You've not done so.
quote:If anything Zimmerman says from this point on is true, then he had every right to shoot Martin. He had as much right to be there as Martin did. He had a legal permit for his gun. If he was assaulted, and felt in danger, he has a right to defend himself.
No. In fact, several things from that point on, Zimmerman must be telling the truth for him to be legally clean here. Or at least one big thing: who threw the first punch, and why.
quote:Neither one were angels, they both seem to have made some really bad choices. But if Martin (notice I said if) came back to Zimmerman, he made the dumbest choice of all. By everything we have now, had Martin just kept going rather than turn back to Zimmerman, he would be alive.
'Both made bad choices'? What was Martin's bad choice, exactly? To walk home from a convenience store? To have eyes that could see things that didn't belong to him? Or to just be wandering through when Dudley Doright happened to be strapped while coming home from Target? These are the only things we know Martin actually did to be factually accurate. The rest is very much in question. So...no. Before accounts start to diverge, Zimmerman made quite a few bad choices unmatched by Martin. Getting a gun as a private citizen to go to Target? Stupid. Legal, but stupid, just as we would say that someone who blows their kid's college money at Vegas is stupid. Following after he'd been instructed not to, even if he wasn't legally bound to obey? Also stupid. Exiting his car for any reason, deeply stupid, because if Martin actually IS so suspicious and does something, Martin has only one way to handle things, and that's with his gun. And he's not a freaking cop. That's not his job.
The very fact that you'll look at Martin's ONE (uncertain, that is we don't know whether this actually happened or not) choice and say 'he'd be alive if...' and say that was the dumbest, when Zimmerman made a series of bad choices that led straight to a dead kid...well. Again. You'll really have to pardon me for pointing out that you're sending mixed signals-and not mixed as in you don't know what happened, but mixed as in on the one hand you say we don't know, but then go on speaking as though we DO know, and it's Martin's bad.
quote:I support gun ownership, at least in part because of my own personal history of being mugged, yet I don't own one myself despite being very well trained in their use, specifically because I am afraid of using it and then regretting it for the rest of my life.
Being mugged, as emotionally traumatic-and I don't downplay it, I'm just trying to be precise-is a great reason to support gun ownership. From a personal, emotional standpoint. By itself, though, it's a pretty crappy one, frankly, when you begin to look at how many people are killed or injured in this country by gun violence who wouldn't otherwise be. Hell, just by accident or intoxication.
quote:I had nightmares for a decade, no joke, after being mugged. Most of them were about the kid who died. Yet all I had done was defend myself, AFTER trying to run away. I can only imagine what Zimmerman feels right now, even if only half his story is true. No one doubted me, except my sergent, who literally said " Funny how every soldier who gets jumped says " I got one of them real good", when usually they didn't"...but I had used my hands, not a gun. I was walking alone at night, in my Army PT top....a grey hoodie. EVERYONE is doubting Zimmerman (myself included), so imagine how alone he feels right now.
But you're not doubting Zimmerman, at least not on several of the most important but still contested facts. That's what I've been trying to point out. You even said it yourself above-Martin made the choice that got him killed, Martin made the dumbest choice, Martin's empty bag of pot points to 'not an angel', Martin was suspicious just by being there, so on and so forth.
How alone does Zimmerman feel? Well for starters he's feeling something at all. As for me, I tend to wonder more how the parents feel after their kid turns up dead going to the store for a drink and some skittles, rather than wondering how the paranoid neighborhood watchmen police wannabe feels after his overreactions resulted in a dead body rather than a wasted 911 call.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for surprise, though: I wonder what you think the statistics are for accidental gun deaths in this country are, Kwea? That's without, by the way, throwing in the thousands that occur because a gun is to hand in, say, a nice ordinary domestic squabble. Versus how many people are saved by their own firearms, that wouldn't have been saved any other way.
Is this (the bold part) something that can actually be easily determined, Rakeesh?
Off the top of my head, it sort of seems statistical comparisons like that will be grossly skewed, considering every gun death (accidental or otherwise) is likely to get reported. Whereas if a gun is used to, say, scare off muggers and nobody actually gets shot, how does that get tracked? Only if the potential mugging victim makes the effort to then go down to the police station and file a report, right? Otherwise it just slips through the cracks.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And consider how many times guns are used for other purposes each day in this country alone. Leave out the legal rights, leave out the ability to resist not just criminals but governments if they turn on the people. Millions of shots a week are fired with no bad injuries, no deaths, and with a good amount of food placed on the table. Or targets blown to bits.
YOU don't think one justifies the other. I disagree.
More people die every year in avoidable traffic accidents than die of GSW's, by far.
You keep talking about MY assumptions, but look at the ones YOU are making. YOU assume he was a normal kid, YOU assume he didn't approach Zimmerman....you call him a wannabe, a loser,
And I said IF he came back at Zimmerman he made the dumbest mistake of all. Not that he did. IF he did, then he took something that was effectively done with and escalated it, and payed for it with his life.
And I don't agree taking a gun with you to shop is stupid. What is the point of a carry permit if you never carry? It's not a choice I would make, but it is not dumb, or even dangerous in and of itself.
I have said IF a thousand times. I have stated multiple times about how I feel, and what I think. And the only "response like this" I have been getting, once again, is from you.
As far as the truth goes....>I'd say Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said he was following him on foot several blocks from his car, wouldn't you? Then he stated he was going back to his car. There were no sounds of a scuffle on his 911 call at that point, right? Then there WAS some sort of physical fight, near his car, WHERE HE SAID HE WAS RETURNING. What do you THINK happened?
IF (IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ) the evidence supports this fact, then I'd say he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Break off pursuit and return to his car. I haven't heard a single thing that refutes that...so far.
If you accept that Martin was running away (which is why Zimmerman said he was on foot himself, IIRC)....then how else would he end up back at the car with Zimmerman? Magic? Did someone open a "Lost Gate" and send him back there against his will?
I do plan on discussing psychiatry here in more depth when I have the time/energy to do so, just so you know.
I'll try to delve into the discussion of psychiatry without having to explain too much Popperian epistemology... I hope, anyway, since summing up Popper to a hostile audience doesn't sound terribly fun. If you're interested in Popperian epistemology, I suggest you read Conjectures & Refutations by Karl Popper.
For a case not explicitly drawn on Popperian epistemology, I'll probably be drawing on the works of Thomas Szasz, particularly his book The Myth of Mental Illness. That's another book I'd recommend. You can also find some of his thoughts available for free online in interviews and the like.
I'll be back later, but remember, in both cases I, of course, think these guys are much more knowledgeable and persuasive than I will be. So if you have the time, I highly recommend you get the ideas from their sources!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: For a case not explicitly drawn on Popperian epistemology, I'll probably be drawing on the works of Thomas Szasz, particularly his book The Myth of Mental Illness. That's another book I'd recommend. You can also find some of his thoughts available for free online in interviews and the like.
I've read it. Szasz is wrong about mental illness to a way which hasn't really been scientifically controversial for quite some time. To trust in Szasz's antipsychology standpoint, you have to argue that something like psychosis is quite literally just a medical myth. That schizophrenia is a medical myth. That the state of bipolar I mania is a medical myth. Szasz is stuck back in the psychological world of the 60's, when he cofounded a group with the Church of Scientology to 'combat psychiatry' based on a similarly defunct notion about the realities of mental illness and our own biology.
As for engaging psychology based on Popperian epistemology, is it a consistent and widespread interpretation of it that it demonstrates the fundamental failure of psychology, as you are claiming? Or will this end up more a realm of distinct antipsychology that draws circumstantially upon Popperian arguments?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: For a case not explicitly drawn on Popperian epistemology, I'll probably be drawing on the works of Thomas Szasz, particularly his book The Myth of Mental Illness. That's another book I'd recommend. You can also find some of his thoughts available for free online in interviews and the like.
I've read it. Szasz is wrong about mental illness to a way which hasn't really been scientifically controversial for quite some time. To trust in Szasz's antipsychology standpoint, you have to argue that something like psychosis is quite literally just a medical myth. That schizophrenia is a medical myth. That the state of bipolar I mania is a medical myth. Szasz is stuck back in the psychological world of the 60's, when he cofounded a group with the Church of Scientology to 'combat psychiatry' based on a similarly defunct notion about the realities of mental illness and our own biology.
I appreciate you letting me know, so I don't waste my time.
I'm a little curious why you read it in the first place, considering the stock you put in what is or is not considered to be "scientifically controversial."
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As for engaging psychology based on Popperian epistemology, is it a consistent and widespread interpretation of it that it demonstrates the fundamental failure of psychology, as you are claiming? Or will this end up more a realm of distinct antipsychology that draws circumstantially upon Popperian arguments?
I'm not sure I understand your question, Sam. Are you asking if my position is shared by lots of Popperians? I'm not sure. I don't know all that many Popperians.
Proponents of Popperian epistemology seem few and far between, as far as I know. The largest, most coherent and intelligent group I know of is probably on the Beginning of Infinity discussion list on google groups. The group gets its name from the most recent book by Deutsch, but its topics range across many aspects of Popper, psychiatry, etc.
The group has a whopping 142 members, and quite a few of those are simply fans of the book who have no particular knowledge of Popper. So, I'm not sure what your definition of "widespread" would be, but that doesn't sound to me like it would fit.
To take the Popperian angle, before discussing psychiatry we'd probably need to discuss things like "What are ideas and how are they formed?" which is a question I think Popper answered (though Deutsch expanded on his answer, especially with Dawkins' meme theory).
But honestly, I have no idea what questions like this mean: "Or will this end up more a realm of distinct antipsychology that draws circumstantially upon Popperian arguments?"
So I don't know how to answer them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
A few things: if you look at the date on that story, you'll see why it's of little relevance to what we were discussing. But if it was, I would point out that forensics experts who AREN'T friends of either party have weighed in on whose voice it is on the tape. Furthermore, the article you use in support of your argument has its own front-loaded example of racism: this friend's credibility is greater, it seems, because he's black? Or what, exactly?
Now as for your saying 'if', I just quotes at some length several examples of you NOT saying if. If you meant your ifs to be a coverall for everything, well, it seems to me that's on you.
quote:As far as the truth goes....>I'd say Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said he was following him on foot several blocks from his car, wouldn't you? Then he stated he was going back to his car. There were no sounds of a scuffle on his 911 call at that point, right? Then there WAS some sort of physical fight, near his car, WHERE HE SAID HE WAS RETURNING. What do you THINK happened?
Here's what I'd like to know: why is it apparently more likely to you that Martin, a 'no angel' but who nonetheless has not been shown to have a history of violence like this (for the record, though, if this were to change, my perspective would as well), would just rush up and attack Zimmerman...why is that apparently MORE likely than the 'mixed bag' (and frankly, it's still absurd you claim his 911 record is a 'mixed bag'; I have basically zero doubt that if I were to ask you to trust my random friend's judgment on emergencies who calls 911 for potholes, you'd rightly laugh in my face) Zimmerman might have instigated the physical confrontation himself. I don't understand it. All your weight is on his 'not being an angel' against Zimmerman's 911 record, his disregarding dispatch, a restraining order, dropped resisting arrest charges, him NOT being the voice heard on the tape...with all of this, it's supposed to be Martin who more than likely started things.
quote:If you accept that Martin was running away (which is why Zimmerman said he was on foot himself, IIRC)....then how else would he end up back at the car with Zimmerman? Magic? Did someone open a "Lost Gate" and send him back there against his will?
A question I've asked more than once: how, exactly, do we know where things started and what exactly Zimmerman of Martin were doing in the instant before the altercation? Well, I know how YOU know-eyewitness accounts that are contradicted by forensic evidence, the truthfulness and accuracy of Zimmerman's statements, but I fail to see why anyone without a prior sympathy with Zimmerman ought to take that view.
Look, I can easily get my head around why, given your own personal experience, you're inclined to stand more on Zimmerman's side of the fence than the other. I really do, it makes sense and isn't shameful or embarrassing or any sort of mark against you, in my books, not that that is important at all. It's just, that is plainly where you ARE standing, and I fail to see how pointing that out is calling you a racist dittohead or anything. If that's not where you're standing, then you've done an...imprecise job of communicating it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There also may be an element of race involved in how Trayvon Martin responded to being followed.
I don't know about that-- his reaction (to run) isn't necessarily racial so much as it is the reaction of a kid who thinks he's being pursued. (And completely justified, if not necessarily the smartest thing to do.)
I'm curious why you think running is not the smartest thing to do if your are being followed by a stranger?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he did say 'not necessarily', not 'generally'. If for example the stranger is going to shoot you whether you're facing him or fleeing, and he's a good shot, running away is probably not the best of a series of crummy options, just as an example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's not. I think it is a good thing, and about time, that someone other than the Sanford police investigate this. I am not on either side.
But my original point was that most of the hoopla and pony show about this case have been misstating facts, and slamming Zimmmerman on the racial angle, when in fact he has a number of black family members, has mentored a number of back kids, and has no record of racism himself.
I also feel that the media has been a significant factor, both in non-coverage of this at first, then in falsely reporting a number of things, in order to cause ratings.
I don't see a lack of people on Martin's side, but I see a HUGE rush to judgement against Zimmerman for a number of reasons, none of which should be considered actual facts.
I don't even know for a fact that race was an issue, but every other word mentioned at this point is racist or profiled.
I believe that there is a lack of evidence either way, and while I wouldn't want Zimmerman for a neighbor (or as Captain of my neighborhood watch) I don't assume he is guilty, because that is't how we are suppose to do it here.
I wonder what the coverage would be in Zimmerman was black. And I don't think that makes me a racist, either. I think it says more about the media coverage than anything else.
As far as the actual instant before the altercation....no, we don't know. And we may never know. But if it turns out that Zimmerman did return to the car, then who is probably more likely to have started a confrontation....the guy who went back to the car to wait for police, or the guy who came back, and never called the police, even when chased? They guy on the bottom of the pile, with injuries, or the one on top doing the beating, who had no physical injuries?
I am not sure, but it will be interesting to see what else comes to light.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The coverage if Zimmerman was black? Well that's usually very mediocre for media ratings, but who can say for sure? There are elements that make this sensational even without the race angle.
Now see, Kwea, there you go again: 'the guy who did the beating', and 'never called the police'. Can you imagine many scenarios in which the latter would not be conclusive for a black kid in Sanford? As for the former...yes, no physical injuries (aside of course from the fatal shooting). In fact, the man who handled his remains has said his body bore no signs of the apparently serious beating he administered to Zimmerman. Obviously that's not conclusive, but if we're going to talk about the condition of Martin's body, we have to actually talk about it. If we're going to talk about what witnesses claim to hear on tape, then by god we're going to talk about what forensics tells us is actually ON that tape, if we can bring forensics to bear, and we can.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I appreciate you letting me know, so I don't waste my time.
I'm a little curious why you read it in the first place, considering the stock you put in what is or is not considered to be "scientifically controversial."
This isn't a waste of time unless you intend to make it that way from the beginning due to hard limits on the willingness to substantiate your position. The issue is that Szasz has a frightfully incorrect position on the nature of mental illness, so the question is whether or not you put stock in his argument about mental illness or not. Do you believe that mental illness is a myth?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But honestly, I have no idea what questions like this mean: "Or will this end up more a realm of distinct antipsychology that draws circumstantially upon Popperian arguments?"
So I don't know how to answer them.
Let's try this: If a professor of philosophy sat down with accurate running knowledge of the methodology of modern psychology, as well as with an accurate knowledge of Popperian epistemology, would they conclude that Popperian epistemology, if you take it as valid, demonstrates the invalidity of modern psychology? In short, would they agree straightforwardly with the proposal that, according to Popperian epistemology, psychology 'fundamentally fails at epistemology?'
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I appreciate you letting me know, so I don't waste my time.
I'm a little curious why you read it in the first place, considering the stock you put in what is or is not considered to be "scientifically controversial."[/qb
This isn't a waste of time unless you intend to make it that way from the beginning due to hard limits on the willingness to substantiate your position. The issue is that Szasz has a frightfully incorrect position on the nature of mental illness, so the question is whether or not you put stock in his argument about mental illness or not. Do you believe that mental illness is a myth?
I agree with Szasz, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Let's try this: If a professor of philosophy sat down with accurate running knowledge of the methodology of modern psychology, as well as with an accurate knowledge of Popperian epistemology, would they conclude that Popperian epistemology, if you take it as valid, demonstrates the invalidity of modern psychology? In short, would they agree straightforwardly with the proposal that, according to Popperian epistemology, psychology 'fundamentally fails at epistemology?'
I have no idea what a professor of philosophy would say about it, Sam. Actually, off the top of my head most general philosophy experts deeply misunderstand Popper and consequently dismiss him for what I and other Popperians would call illegitimate reasons.
But you know, I really have no interest in playing a game of appealing to authority with you. You won't be persuaded by anything I say, categorically, because you're more concerned with things like status and authority (an attitude Popper strongly criticizes).
The people who I'd say understand Popper's theories best have zero academic credentials in the field of philosophy (they're mostly physicists and programmers, as far as I can tell), which to you means their opinions are, I guess, worthless. Or at least, worth less.
So what's the point of continuing this? As I said in an earlier post, there's a reason I try to keep my posts here focused on particular topics (like self-defense), and not stray into broader underpinning issues like epistemology.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I...I've got to admit, the idea that the human mind is better understood by Popperian programmers and physicists, or that it could be invalidated by such thinking, rather than psychiatry in general is just deeply baffling to me. *shrug* Clearly you're not willing to discuss it much, but man, it is just *weird*, dude!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, despite most of Western civilization's explicit recognition of appeals to authority as fallacious, assigning theories merit based on status is still a really pervasive static meme in society. So it's unsurprising that not doing that seems weird and baffling.
... Although I guess it's worth mentioning that of course Szasz himself is a professor of psychiatry, so he should still count as an authority, right? If that was what actually mattered...
Edit: I guess it depends on why one dismisses Szasz. If you dismiss him because lots of other psychiatrists say he's wrong, then the status/authority meme is still in play. If you dismiss him because he makes no sense to you, then clearly you're opting for your own reason and ability to criticize ideas over an external authority. Either way I'd disagree, but the latter certainly shows a more Popperian way of thinking!
Edit #2: Rakeesh, if you're curious how on earth anyone could make some of the claims Sam and I have alluded to, here is a great summary of Szasz's views that you can read for free, on a Popperian philosophy site. Actually, poking around that site (or the linked Fallible Ideas site) is probably a good way to find out a lot about my general philosophy, if you care.
I don't agree 100% with the guys who put those sites together, but I agree with them more any anyone else I know.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...Getting a gun as a private citizen to go to Target? Stupid. Legal, but stupid, just as we would say that someone who blows their kid's college money at Vegas is stupid...
While I tend to agree with most of what you have said, although not the tone it was said in, the above quote I disagree with vehemently. I'm not sure how it works in Florida, but when my dad got his carry permit in Minnesota he had to have a valid reason to want to carry. Some examples were, "Dangerous line of work, carries lots of cash, death threats, etc."
Now I don't think given Zimmerman's history he should have been issued a carry permit. But if you have reason to need a gun, and you have a legal carry permit, you don't leave it at home because you are going to the market.
Markets get robbed, and if you have a valid reason to need a gun, it is still as valid in a market as anywhere else.
To say that carrying a gun to go shopping is as stupid as blowing your child's college money in Vegas is one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The coverage if Zimmerman was black? Well that's usually very mediocre for media ratings, but who can say for sure? There are elements that make this sensational even without the race angle.
Now see, Kwea, there you go again: 'the guy who did the beating', and 'never called the police'. Can you imagine many scenarios in which the latter would not be conclusive for a black kid in Sanford? As for the former...yes, no physical injuries (aside of course from the fatal shooting). In fact, the man who handled his remains has said his body bore no signs of the apparently serious beating he administered to Zimmerman. Obviously that's not conclusive, but if we're going to talk about the condition of Martin's body, we have to actually talk about it. If we're going to talk about what witnesses claim to hear on tape, then by god we're going to talk about what forensics tells us is actually ON that tape, if we can bring forensics to bear, and we can.
Actually, the coroner stated that Martin had no injuries to his head and face. He also said he had no evidence of a beating as far as damage to his hands, though.
I would love to hear what the actual evidence, including the state of Martin's body was as well. Forensics will tell part of the story, and it will be interesting to see what unfolds. Unfortunately, even if the evidence were to clear Zimmerman completely, it's already too late.
Mind you, I don't think that the evidence will. I think it will clarify things, to a point, but after that point we will never know beyond what is THINK happened. Unless a new witness comes out of the woodwork, it's going to come down to a simple burden of proof.
I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this though.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious why you think running is not the smartest thing to do if your are being followed by a stranger?
The smartest thing to do is get other people involved. He had a cellphone-- call the police. He was walking through a neighborhood-- knock on a door, and ask for help. Both are smart options for anyone who believes himself to be in danger.
KMBoots has pointed out that as a black male, Martin might not have believed that calling the police would have yielded assistance. Given the alleged record of the Sanford cops, I think there may be some truth to that. He may not have trusted either the police or the people in the neighborhood to help him.
That doesn't mean that running away was his best or only option in this situation. Just that he believed it to be (possibly). Certainly, he's justified.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Markets get robbed, and if you have a valid reason to need a gun, it is still as valid in a market as anywhere else.
*snort* You want to talk about silly things, SW? Alright. Suppose the market IS robbed while the concealed carry guy is there. Is it supposed to be a GOOD thing that random concealed weapons permit citizen is on the scene, armed? Or would it be better if that same person were replaced by someone who was keenly observant, level-headed, and good at keeping other people calm?
I know for a fact what most cops would say. I know what the store owner would say. I know what the other shoppers would say. They would say that it ain't the set of Die Hard, but by all means, point out how what I said was silly. You haven't yet but perhaps there's more to your case?
------
Kwea, that's what I said. 'No signs of the beating he supposedly administered.' As for what the evidence shows, it already shows us-according to respected forensics experts experienced in courtroom testimony-that in spite of what witnesses and friends of Zimmerman say, it's almost certainly not his voice shouting on the tapes. Witnesses are wrong much more often than forensics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Note that there are often opposing and valid interpretations of forensic evidence.
(In this specific case, I'm not sure if there are or not-- but it's a bit facile to suppose that all evidence leads to the same interpretation.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, and in this case that very well may turn out to be what is accurate-that there are valid and contradictory interpretations. But until then, I don't think we ought to assume that it's less weighty (not that I think you are) because it might be contradicted later. And perhaps we'll find out that the experts were inept in this case, or fudged their work, or something. Could happen.
But if we're going to be hearing about what a few witnesses report is being said or shouted on the tape (in this case, an actual friend of Zimmerman!), then I think it's more than reasonable to bring up what we know of the forensics so far.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* You want to talk about silly things, SW? Alright. Suppose the market IS robbed while the concealed carry guy is there. Is it supposed to be a GOOD thing that random concealed weapons permit citizen is on the scene, armed? Or would it be better if that same person were replaced by someone who was keenly observant, level-headed, and good at keeping other people calm?
The huge assumptions you are making just show how little you know about gun culture and how very little you automatically think of armed people. You assume that the person with a gun ISN'T keenly observant, level-headed and good at keeping other people clam...because they have a gun. Right from the start you tip your hand in what you think.
Let's say there is someone with a gun in a store being robbed, and they comply and never draw down...until the robber announce they plan on murdering everyone in the store, then this person calmly draws their gun and kills the robbers before they can complete their plans. It happened in Texas (it was a bank).
How about that crazy jobbie in NY on the subway who started killing, and got rushed by multiple brave souls and only got subdued when he had to stop to reload. Had even one of those brave people willing to put their lives on the line had a gun, there would not have been bodies in piles on the "C" train or whichever.
This is exactly why I am so upset with Zimmerman, because you assume that calm level-headedness and carrying a gun are mutually exclusive from the starting gate.
So yea, your statement is silly.
Had you ever taken a class on carrying you would know they -teach- you to not act like the law, to only draw your gun in case a life is in direct threat, to comply with robbers, etc.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: This is exactly why I am so upset with Zimmerman...
And, of course, the fact that his misuse of a carry permit and a gun was pivotal in the death of one of our young people.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since it looks like we are getting into the mental illness issue here, I have a couple of things to say.
First, I've read a bit about Szasz before (sndrake is, or at least was, into him as well), although nothing that's convinced me to devote the needed time to reading one of his books.
From what I can tell, the weak point in his position is obviously this (well summarized at the link Dan offered):
quote:Many of Szasz’s critics object that we may yet find that schizophrenia, say, is caused by some currently unknown change in the structural or chemical properties of the body. And indeed, they must discover such changes: how else can we explain very odd behaviour of a person diagnosed with a mental illness? There are two other explanations. The first explanation is that a person can lie about his own beliefs and actions to get committed, or he can lie about the beliefs and actions of other people to get them committed. The second explanation is that a person might actually hold odd beliefs. Most people throughout most of history have held beliefs that are now considered odd, e.g. - the idea that Jews or witches poison wells, or drink blood, or murder children en masse.
Now, the first possible explanation is obviously terrible. Perhaps it helps in this regard to have had trusted friends who were mental patients; I know these people wouldn't lie about such a thing.
The second explanation is vastly insufficient to the task of explaining the observed data. Maybe it works for schizophrenia, but it provides no explanation whatsoever for the kind of dramatic memory loss that comes with bad mania (for example). The fact that someone holds "odd beliefs" can't explain why they forget every conversation they have.
Add to this the fact that we can already tell whether or not someone is depressed from an fMRI, and the position appears quite untenable. Indeed, falsified, as Karl Popper would put it. Szasz's hypothesis that mental illnesses are not brain diseases is in contradiction with the data, at least in the case of clinical depression. The effectiveness of drugs like lithium and antidepressants offer corroborating data for this point.
quote: To take the Popperian angle, before discussing psychiatry we'd probably need to discuss things like "What are ideas and how are they formed?" which is a question I think Popper answered (though Deutsch expanded on his answer, especially with Dawkins' meme theory).
Dan, I'm surprised that you go in for meme theory (in the sense of believing it's true; no denying that it's cool) while implying the science of psychopathology is on a weak footing. Memetics really is entirely untested experimentally. Indeed, a lot of critics have gone after it for being unfalsifiable, which has always made it seem a little weird to me that Deutsch brings it in to buttress Popper.
ETA: It's interesting, too, that the question of "what are ideas and how are they formed?" is supposed to be a question for a philosopher to answer, rather than a scientist. As a philosopher, this seems a little surprising! Especially since "ideas," the way we usually use the word, seem to be neuro-physiological aspects of certain animal species (our species included). I fully believe that it's part of the philosopher's job to propose speculative theories about how animals' brains function, but to determine which of these theories is right seems like a job for scientists.
None of this is to say that the actual scientists working on this question have answered it fully or correctly. But the idea that a philosopher has done so is pretty hard to believe.
Let's just clear a few things up quickly. First, I don't assume anyone with a concealed premit automatically has bad judgment. I assume-with some very solid reasons-that about Zimmerman.
I base my anxiety on concealed weapons permits not because I mistrust gun owners as a class of people, but because I know how very easy it can be to get or retain a concealed permit when one shouldn't have one. For example, Zimmerman. I don't particularly care that making a habit of calling 911 for trivialities isn't illegal, it is still a sign of just plain bad judgment, and the judgment of a person who will or has the right to carry deadly force out into the world ought to be relevant.
Finally, as for your hypotheticals. Well, goodness! We ought certainly to set our laws based on the most unlikely, most extreme situations. After all, one never knows when a bank robbery-itself an uncommon event-will turn into a murder spree, especially since with cameras a murder spree gains no criminal anything, in most cases. Such things are *certainly* as likely as someone with a concealed permit and a gun in their car, say, discovering their spouse is cheating and in a fit of rage killing them. It's certainly just as likely as that same person going to a bar and getting in a fight and then popping the trunk.
In fact, I'll bet your examples are even MORE likely. The important thing is on this issue, we need to set the laws to deal with the most shocking, most horrifying, most uncommon events-rather than taking into account that which is so much more common and likely.
That is why your statement was silly. It is a *terrible* idea to say, "We need concealed weapons permits because what happens if a grocery store robbery goes wrong?!" Someone who carries lots of cash, receives death threats, walks through a high crime neighborhood, I've no beef with them. But this just-in-case vigilantism is dangerous, it's nonsense, and it helps cause much more trouble than it solves.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* You want to talk about silly things, SW? Alright. Suppose the market IS robbed while the concealed carry guy is there. Is it supposed to be a GOOD thing that random concealed weapons permit citizen is on the scene, armed? Or would it be better if that same person were replaced by someone who was keenly observant, level-headed, and good at keeping other people calm?
The huge assumptions you are making just show how little you know about gun culture and how very little you automatically think of armed people. You assume that the person with a gun ISN'T keenly observant, level-headed and good at keeping other people clam...because they have a gun. Right from the start you tip your hand in what you think.
Let's say there is someone with a gun in a store being robbed, and they comply and never draw down...until the robber announce they plan on murdering everyone in the store, then this person calmly draws their gun and kills the robbers before they can complete their plans. It happened in Texas (it was a bank).
How about that crazy jobbie in NY on the subway who started killing, and got rushed by multiple brave souls and only got subdued when he had to stop to reload. Had even one of those brave people willing to put their lives on the line had a gun, there would not have been bodies in piles on the "C" train or whichever.
This is exactly why I am so upset with Zimmerman, because you assume that calm level-headedness and carrying a gun are mutually exclusive from the starting gate.
So yea, your statement is silly.
Had you ever taken a class on carrying you would know they -teach- you to not act like the law, to only draw your gun in case a life is in direct threat, to comply with robbers, etc.
Even in your scenarios there are as many people who should not have a gun as there are people who should.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually do sort of envy the idea of having the opportunity to have lived a life free of the personal experiences that would make it impossible to continue to believe szasz.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I have no idea what a professor of philosophy would say about it, Sam. Actually, off the top of my head most general philosophy experts deeply misunderstand Popper and consequently dismiss him for what I and other Popperians would call illegitimate reasons.
But you know, I really have no interest in playing a game of appealing to authority with you. You won't be persuaded by anything I say, categorically, because you're more concerned with things like status and authority (an attitude Popper strongly criticizes).
The people who I'd say understand Popper's theories best have zero academic credentials in the field of philosophy (they're mostly physicists and programmers, as far as I can tell), which to you means their opinions are, I guess, worthless. Or at least, worth less.
Obviously you have a palpable personal distaste against the notion of authority in the world of philosophy, and missed that nothing about my argument hinges on an argument to authority. Which you drew even further towards determining on my behalf that I apparently need academic credentials from a philosopher to consider their views worthwhile.
To avoid this particular minefield of yours, how would you have responded to my question if you replace "a professor of philosophy" with "A person who is well-versed and intimitely knowledgable, if not partial, towards Popper's ideas" — what changes?
quote:So what's the point of continuing this? As I said in an earlier post, there's a reason I try to keep my posts here focused on particular topics (like self-defense), and not stray into broader underpinning issues like epistemology.
This is a question to ask yourself, before repeatedly committing only superficially to a series of extremely controversial and weird positions that you will later not want to substantiate well enough to make them credible. If you commit only to the superficial level, then it turns from a dialogue into just a summary as to why the statements you make aren't credible. I'm fine with either.
quote:According to a senior law enforcement official, Corey is expected to announce that Zimmerman will face state charges. The number or nature of the charges was not immediately known.
...
On Tuesday, Zimmerman's attorneys announced they were no longer representing him and that they had not heard from him since Sunday, although he had contacted talk show host Sean Hannity and the special prosecutor.
Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Justice Department will take appropriate action in the killing of Trayvon Martin if it finds evidence that a federal criminal civil rights crime has been committed.
posted
This case is well too sodden to say that it doesn't make sense. Second degree murder could easily be said to make sense, but that depends on what evidence the special prosecutor is looking at that made them feel confident with going ahead on murder 2.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can imagine several very plausible playouts of the unknown moments that may well have some evidence sticking to them that would substantiate that level of charge. For instance, it wouldn't surprise me at all (nor should it anyone) that Zimmerman, beyond following, actually started a fight as the aggressor with Martin-under the law if that fight started going south on Zimmerman and he then shot Martin, that might make murder 2 stick. Of course, I also wouldn't be surprised (though I would be MORE surprised) to find that Martin was the aggressor, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manslaughter certainly would be an easier charge to make stick.
Either the prosecution has a smoking gun witness, or the audio they have is stellar, or the autopsy is absolutely damning to Zimmerman's story.
Some combination of those forces almost certainly must be true, otherwise I can't imagine they would go for Murder 2.
Or if you're a conspiracy theorist...they chose murder 2 KNOWING they couldn't make it stick, but wanted to charge him to mollify critics of the case. In other words, it could all be theater.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it could be a political thing. Don't think it's likely, because I think the fallout from a failed prosecution on a tougher charge wouldn't be that different from a reluctant admission that there wasn't enough evidence to try. My personal, totally layman position is that, like you mentioned, the conditions of Martin's body will be pretty compelling.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I don't know if Zimmerman is telling the truth, but so far I haven't seen or heard a lot that says he isn't...so I assume he is telling at least the truth as he remembers it, until it's proven he lied.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
