Your hypothesis might have held some degree of validity in the late 60’s or early to mid 70’s when rich white kids really did not know where to go to look for drugs, but not today. Anybody rich, poor, black, white, young or old does not have to travel far or go through some myriad of “connections” to obtain drugs.
At the street cop level the cops I have known do not care any more for smart assed, “affluenzia” kids than they do poor black kids.
The difference comes in court level… where the rich parents can hire the best, most expensive lawyers. At that level money talks…sadly.
What is true is that money buys freedom, and worse than that is today’s parents are WILLING to buy their kids out of trouble.
I wonder, too. If someone asks, “Why are the vast majority of (arrested, incarcerated) people men?” the obvious answer would be, “Because men commit more crimes.” But when people ask why black people are arrested or incarcerated, it always has to be some other reason.
In theory, that’s how the city/county governments are supposed to work anyway. Everywhere I’ve ever lived, the police chief serves at the pleasure of the mayor or city manager- it is not an elected position. County sheriffs are elected directly, and there is some oversight by the commissioners court and county judge as well.
I think where the problem comes in, is that the elected officials tend to believe their appointees, in a sort of Cold War-esque situation where in order to secure their piece of the fiscal pie, they believe they need to portray things as worse than they are, and the elected officials get scared, and let the appointed police chiefs do their own thing without proper oversight.
That’s kind of the elephant in the room. Not just for shootings, but for police-black interactions in general.
Which is why the response that BLM and related groups do lots of protesting of black-on-black crime because black-on-black crime kills more blacks is fine but almost beside the point. Let’s see BLM lead a protest march against black-on-police crime, or against black criminals resisting arrest, and they would have more credibility.
Perhaps part of the answer would be an honest evaluation of each situation for what it is, not what those in the BLM movement and the press want it to be.
There is a unbroken string of judges, juries and DOJ investigations that dismisses the hyperbole of each situation going back a number of years now.
You can’t say in every case this is racist. I highly doubt the DOJ under Eric Holder was when they dismissed the Michael Brown case and failed to charge Darren Wilson.
Exactly, it is not politically correct to mention that at all. No department head (police chief, sheriff, district attorney, etc.) would say that. No politician would ever touch that. No news media outlet would suggest that either, but it is a significant factor I think.
First line of Table 6, labeled ‘No Controls’, indicates a mean rate of 0.534 for lethal shooting force on non-blacks non-hispanics, and a mean rate of 0.987 (0.135) for blacks.
The claim jsc1953 made, that police are shooting to death a disproportionate number of black civilians, is supported by this cite. The raw rate is higher, a larger proportion of black civilians are killed in this manner than white civilians. That’s what disproportionate means.
The paper proceeds to model non-racial reasons for this, and after doing so the modified rate accounting for what they argue are appropriate controls for these factors the rate drops to parity… but the statement being responded to didn’t make any such claim, it was simply about the proportion who are killed, and it was accurate.
**
That did not establish your claim. ** (Sorry to yell, but I want to make sure this doesn’t escape his attention.)
Your claim was that he attacked him just for asking him what he was doing. That is in fact only established through Zimmerman’s testimony, and is factually untrue.
What we actually know is that Zimmerman was following the guy around, making him afraid for his life. We have the goddamned fucking recording on his cell phone.
This right here is the problem. You ignore reality to assume it was the victims guy’s fault. Just because Zimmerman wasn’t convicted of Murder 2 doesn’t make it Martin’s fault. It definitely doesn’t make it a shooting for asking him what he was doing.
You likewise choose to primarily blame the people who are killed despite the ample evidence that people get killed when they shouldn’t. You cite resisting arrest as a valid reason to be shot, when it isn’t.
And you ignore all the deescalation stuff we’ve talked about at length here to say that most shootings are inevitable. Time after time we’ve covered how to deescalate, and it happens in every other country because not every cop has a gun and can hide behind the blue wall.
Hell, you try to say it’s about saying that police lives matter, when the police killings only started happening AFTER the BLM movement started. So it inherently could not have been the problem.
You’ve got the problem exactly backwards. It’s that police lives are overvalued, particularly by the police themselves, putting their lives above the lives of their community.
What we need is disincentives to jump to killing when there are other options. Every time a suspect is killed, that is a failure in the justice system. That means that said person could not be tried. It may sometimes be an inevitable result, but it is never a good one, and should always have bad consequences. Conversely, apprehending a violent criminal non-lethally should be rewarded. And there should be constant psychological evaluations to make sure the cop hasn’t crossed the line into enjoying killing or having an anxiety disorder that makes them happy on the trigger.
We need to make the police trustworthy again. Not demand that black people trust them just because. Not blame black people for their lack of trust.
Cameras are a start, but they aren’t the end. Not as long as even the stuff caught on camera results in the officer walking. That only makes it look like the cops can get away with anything.
You just cannot demand that people just trust willy nilly. The slogan we should be going for is “Make Cops Trustworthy Again.”
No, it’s established by evidence other than Zimmerman’s testimony. The circumstances of Zimmerman’s injuries are established by medical and police reports, and the absence of any injury to Martin apart from a scrape on Martin’s knuckle and the gunshot wound that killed him show who was the attacked. Dee Dee’s testimony is that Martin doubled back from his father’s girlfriend’s condo, and that Martin asked Zimmerman “why you following me” and Zimmerman asked “what are you doing” and then Martin attacked.
You don’t have to yell. In fact, it might be better not to, especially when you are wrong.
This doesn’t tell us anything about who started the fight – if Zimmerman grabbed Martin, for example, or swung at him, that might not show up as an injury.
This was not Jeantel’s testimony – she said that after Zimmerman said “what are you doing here”, she thought she heard the phone drop, and then she heard Martin say “Get off! Get off!”, and then the phone went dead.
If you’re going by Jeantel’s testimony, it’s not 100% clear who started the fight, but Martin saying “Get off! Get off!” is at least one piece of evidence as to who was the aggressor.
I get why Zimmerman was acquitted. But I don’t get how anyone could be absolutely certain that he didn’t start the fight, considering the evidence.
Shodan, isn’t there a decent chance that, while there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, Zimmerman might have been an aggressive asshole who provoked a fight that he then started losing, and then shot the guy he provoked a fight with?
I’m not certain by any means that this occurred, but I think it’s a possibility, considering the evidence.
Yes, it is. Because of the evidence of the grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees, and the testimony of the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, it is pretty clear who was on top of whom, and therefore who would be saying “get off”.
I have detailed the evidence showing that Martin started the fight. What evidence - not speculation, or “it could have happened” - evidence - do you consider that Zimmerman started the fight?
As mentioned, it is highly implausible that it was Martin saying “get off get off” since all the evidence demonstrates that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was never on top of Martin (if he ever were, there would have been grass and wetness on Martin’s back, and there was not).
Those witnesses didn’t see the entire confrontation. It’s entirely possible to start a fight (say, by grabbing a stranger without their permission) and end up as the loser and underneath the winner.
That Zimmerman was following him; that Jenteal reports that Martin said “Get off! Get off!” and that he was concerned about being followed by a stranger. Not conclusive, and not enough to convict, apparently, but more than enough to leave doubt as to who was the aggressor.
How is this highly implausible? I’ve said “get off!” probably hundreds of times in my life, and most of the time it was when someone touched me and I didn’t want them to, not because someone was on top of me. “Get off! Get off!” is entirely consistent with Zimmerman grabbing Martin, and since Jenteal knew Martin’s voice but not Zimmerman’s, then this is a piece of evidence for that scenario. Grabbing someone without their permission is an aggressive action.
I seriously don’t get your certainty. If you can’t consider the possibility that Jenteal was telling the truth, and that maybe Zimmerman started the fight (even if he didn’t intend to), then I don’t believe you’re being objective.
I asked for evidence, not “it could have happened”.
When was the last time you said “get off” when you were sitting on someone’s chest?
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman grabbed Martin? Again, “it could have happened” is not evidence.
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman grabbed Martin? “It could have happened that way” is not evidence.
I don’t have certainty. I believe in those elements of the case that are established independently. This applies both to Zimmerman, and to Dee Dee. IOW Jeantel is believable when her testimony is backed up by evidence, just like Zimmerman is believable when his testimony is backed up by evidence.
Dee Dee’s account of the conversation between Martin and Zimmerman is believable, because it is backed up by other testimony. Her assertion that it was Martin saying “get off” is not believable, because it is contradicted by the evidence and other testimony, including Zimmerman and the witness. Zimmerman claims that Martin says “you got me” after being shot. I do not believe that, because it is not backed up by any evidence.
We’re discussing your certainty. Why are you so certain when there are plausible explanations that fit the evidence that don’t fit your narrative? The evidence doesn’t favor your narrative any more than Jenteal’s.
You say below that you don’t have certainty, so my chief question might be moot.
What evidence is there that Martin said “get off!” while he was sitting on someone’s chest? Why did those words have to happen at the same time he was on top of Zimmerman?
That Martin said “get off!”, according to Jenteal.
I’m not presenting evidence – I’m presenting a possible scenario that fits the facts just as much as your narrative does.
No disagreement so far.
Contradicted by Zimmerman, but not by the witness or any physical evidence. The witness did not see the entire confrontation, and the witness did not hear anyone say “Get off!”, and physical evidence does not report who started a confrontation when confrontations do not require physical injury to begin.
I find it as believable as Zimmerman’s account, since her story fits the facts just as much as his does.
I don’t get why the Martin on top of Zimmerman thing matters so much to you, to the point that this one one thing necessarily constitutes the entire confrontation. Why does that fact – that, at some point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman – negate the possibility that Jenteal was accurate in reporting Martin’s words?
But at least you’re saying you’re not certain, which was my biggest question mark – I don’t get how, based on all the evidence, anyone could be even close to certain about who started the confrontation.
