Incidentally, DeeDee texted Trayvon after his phone went dead. 7:08:03, which is about 9 minutes before the shot was fired.
Human Action, I don’t mean to gush but this is an impressive post. You’ve highlighted the pertinent part of the book (I lent out my copy), so thank you.
You’re right that Ekman has never espoused the view that race or socioeconomic status has an effect on mind-reading. What he did say was that “People who have had highly abusive childhoods … had to practice the difficult art of reading minds”. Taking into account demographics of blacks comprising 12% of the population, reported child neglect is higher in African-Americans (22%) than in Whites (58%). So basically, Ekman’s hypothesis would make African-Americans disproportionately more able to mind-read compared to Whites who make up >70% of the population but only comprise 58% of the child neglect cases.
Now if you can slide over into your right hemisphere, for a moment, I think when you take into account how minorities are treated in this country, an Ekman from the 1920’s might have found that black families that grew under the terror of the KKK would be better at spotting liars. I also think what Ekman is doing - teaching other people read facial expressions - is what blacks have been teaching their children via cultural memes for quite sometime. The higher incidence and frequency of spanking observed in African Americans, I think, is one of those cultural memes that have persisted to this day.
- Honesty
It shows Martin was a troubled youth kicked out of school (and his mother’s house) whose hobby is street fighting.
So we’ve gone from the younger picture of Trayvon that looks like he was on his way to Disney World to the real world image of a trouble maker who bills himself on facebook as No_limit_Nigga.
Troubled youth who likes (but is not very good at, apparently) mutual combat street fighting does not equal a rageaholic killing machine capable of overpowering a much heavier opponent and simulatenously smothering, punching, and slamming his head into concrete.
The defense knows this shit has no chance in hell of getting admitted into court, and in fact, their worst nightmare is that it will. Because it then allows Zimmerman history to come into play. Everything they can fault for Martin on, Zimmerman tops. Battery to a police officer, slapping a girlfriend, kicking a dog, a Myspace post that references violence, sexual coercion against a minor, workplace bullying, getting fired for being an overly aggressive bouncer, harrassing his black neighbors…do I really need to go on?
you with the face, do you understand that the jury isn’t going to hear the things that you exaggerated, misrepresented, or made up, about Zimmerman either?
Regards,
Shodan
From page 21 of the cited report:
I don’t think neglect was what Ekman was referring to. Neglect is characterized by the lack of interaction with caregivers, as opposed to abuse, which is characterized by high-risk interactions with dangerous caregivers. That is to say, being locked in a room while your mother goes out won’t make you any better at reading people. Trying to avoid a beating might not either, but Ekman seems to believe that it can. So, only 26.7%of the cases in the report are the type that might lead to the effect Ekman claims to have observed. The type-of-abuse numbers are not broken down by racial group.
There’s a deeper issue here, though, which is that Ekman’s claim that detecting deception is a skill that can be acquired has not been supported by modern, peer-reviewed studies, because he refuses to publish his work. He attributes this to security concerns, and he could be sincere. I can’t be the first person, however, to point out that if peer review doesn’t support his findings, his ability to sell training to law enforcement, and his (relative, for a scientist) fame, complete with a TV show based on him, would be adversely affected.
We can dither over the racial implications of his work, but until the work itself is substantiated, it might be akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I’ve no doubt that there are deeply-ingrained cultural differences between American populations that had disparate experiences. For this to extend to detecting deception requires that detecting deception be a skill that can be learned. The evidence that this is so is flimsy at best. With all due respect to Ekman, I’m unwilling to take him on his word, especially when he earns a living on his claims.
By way of analogy, the people of the Western states might put more stock in dowsing than those in wetter parts of the nation. An observer might conclude that because they were in an arid region, it was only plain sense that they’d be forced to develop uniquely effective means of locating water. But, until it can be demonstrated that dowsing actually works, one shouldn’t hire a Westerner to detect a spot for your well, or assume that they are experts on locating water.
They will if they attempt to attack Martin’s character.
What have I exaggerated or misrepresented, by the way? His arrest record is indisputable, and so are the witnesses who have come forward with allegations about his behavior.
Do you still not understand the reason that Martin’s past is admissible and Zimmerman’s isn’t? It’s been explained to you literally dozens of times.
Zimmerman is on trial. That means he gets full protection, and full benefit of the doubt. Martin doesn’t, and indeed doesn’t need it, being unable to be hurt by anything that happens at the trial. Also, we have to prove that Zimmerman is guilty. Nothing from his past can prove that, so it’s irrelevant. We do not have to prove Martin started the fight (making Zimmerman innocent), merely show it’s possible, and his past can absolutely show that, so it’s highly relevant.
Why do you still refuse to understand that it’s not a level playing field? All the advantage (correctly) goes to Zimmerman.
This is an outright lie. You can’t claim ignorance of the fact that it’s false, so it can only be deliberate.
Sadly, it is you and others who are ignorant of the law. Once Zimmerman opens up an attack on Martin’s history, he gives the state full permission to do the same to him.
From here: Character evidence - Wikipedia
You see that part in bold? Read it until it sinks in.
Now read the part underlined. This is really what will nail Zimmerman. If the only sign of violence in Martin was that he was fan of organized street fighting and wanted to own a gun, what does it say about Zimmerman…the guy who has a a history of domestic violence and battering a cop, who carries a gun everywhere he goes?
They may introduce evidence that shows the same character trait. Got any evidence that Zimmerman was a street thug? (Hint - no you haven’t).
What you have is Zimmerman being charged with non-violently resisting an officer (after the original charge of violence was dropped), and an unproven claim of domestic violence which led to Zimmerman and his ex getting mutual restraining orders. Cite. This is not evidence of violent character. Not that that will be admissible, unless the defence claim Martin was involved in fighting the police or his girlfriends.
So no, the prosecution can’t even introduce these facts about Zimmerman’s past, let alone tell the lies about it that you want them to.
Could you please produce evidence that Zimmerman was convicted of domestic violence or battering a cop?
Because you are running into the same problems as the prosecution will - when the prosecution starts misrepresenting the facts, the defense will object and the judge will sustain.
Regards,
Shodan
The evidence shows an athletic 17 year old who liked to fight did in fact overpower a shorter man in what can only be described as a fit of rage.
You say that like there’s evidence that Martin was a street thug, when there isn’t.
The violence is still on his record, though. Just because a charge is dropped, doesn’t mean the offense never happened, and it doesn’t mean the jury can’t hear about it if the defense accuses Martin of being violent.
Do you really think a a single text message about being beaten up by a mutual combatant is enough to damn Martin as a “street thug”, but having an arrest and an injunction on his record for violent acts is a non-issue for Zimmerman? Because his lawyers would have to be retarded to think that.
And this is a pretty retarded statement.
Cite that a conviction is necessary for an arrest to constitute admissible evidence?
It’s stupid to think a single text message, completely taken out of context from Martin’s phone, could be admissible evidence against the victim, but Zimmerman’s history of having multiple run-ins with the law for violent offenses somehow would not.
The law doesn’t work like yall would like.
A street thug would be someone who attacks a stranger and beats his head into the cement. That evidence will certainly be entered in court. The text message shows that Trayvon enjoyed fighting. It’s a skill he was developing as a hobby. The kind of skill one would use to bring down an opponent.
The text message shows that, regardless of if he enjoyed it, he was rather short on skill. At any rate, a good many boys and men enjoy fighting. This is why boxing and WWF remain popular sports, and why violent video games are common household fixtures. It means nothing.
Not a lawyer, here, but that “defendant’s same trait” rule doesn’t seem to exist in Florida law. Here is the part of the federal rules of evidence dealing with character evidence:
Now, here is the part of Florida’s rules of evidence dealing with character evidence:
See what’s missing? The rules are largely the same, except the Florida statute doesn’t contain “evidence of the defendant’s same trait.” So, without getting into what traits are suggested by what evidence, it seems like Flordia doesn’t allow for the sort of evidence you’re speaking of. I, of course, welcome any corrections on parsing the statutes.
There is no dispute that the attack was prolonged and violent. That speaks for itself. The text just shows that Martin enjoyed fighting as a hobby. It lends credence to Zimmerman’s statement that he was punched in the nose at the outset of the confrontation.
It means nothing to you because you have managed to ignore a stack of evidence that backs up Zimmerman’s statement.
Hey, looky there. You may be right. The State may not be able to point out that Zimmerman’s past looks just as suspicious as Martin’s, if not ten times as much. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say for sure, but I will not argue with you on this. Your own cite suggests there is no chance in hell the cellphone stuff will be admissible, which renders this moot anyway.
I will say this. What does it say about someone’s principles and common sense if they see nothing wrong with slandering a possible murder victim as a thug based on trivialities taken from a phone, but will defend to the death a guy with a violent arrest record who has actually shot and killed someone? It doesn’t say a whole lot.