I already said that, in sober hindsight, Scott’s choice (which most likely was driven by instinctive mortal terror) was irrational and unwise. But that has nothing to do with the phenomena of black people being routinely mistreated, abused, and even murdered by law enforcement over decades and centuries.
If you think this – an unwise choice that nonetheless endangered no one and was non-violent – is relevant in the issue of black people being abused and killed for no good reason – then I think less of you.
If you think it’s the behavior of black people, rather than law enforcement, that is the problem in this discussion of black people being habitually mistreated by law enforcement, then you are either ignorant of history or negatively inclined towards black people, IMO.
If you really believe this, I would strongly advise you to step back and re-evaluate these beliefs (which, unfortunately, are quite common in the US). And I’d be happy to help explain why I think you should.
We talk a lot about the right to carry a gun, in this country. But that right also comes with responsibilities. When you’re carrying a gun, you have a responsibility to not start aggressive confrontations, because the presence of the gun means that those confrontations are likely to escalate to violence or death. And when that happens, it’s the fault of the person who started the confrontation while armed.
Yes, of course Martin fought back against Zimmerman, and of course he did so viciously. He did so because that’s the only rational response to being stalked by an armed man who’s out for a confrontation. His best chance of survival (which still wasn’t very good, mind you) was to take out his attacker as quickly as he could, before he got shot. Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful in this, but that’s not his fault.
This (mistreatment of black people by law enforcement, and distrust of law enforcement by black people) is a really tough problem in America, very obviously. But looking at US history, it seems overwhelmingly clear to me that the blame is entirely one sided, just as the blame for slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, and similar discriminatory practices and policies was entirely one-sided. The behavior of black people in America bears zero blame for any of these, and similarly black people bear zero blame for mistreatment by police. The only ones to blame for abuse and mistreatment are the abusers and mistreaters, and those who are aware of it and let it go, and those who support and defend a system that allows it.
This is separate from the issue of disparities by race in criminal statistics. Criminals (black or white or other) do deserve blame for their criminal behavior (exempting, obviously, the falsely convicted). But that doesn’t excuse or explain any mistreatment or abuse whatsoever.
It’s not hard to come up with such a scenario. The hard part comes when there is no evidence to support it, and there is evidence to contradict it. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and there is evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman and beat his head against the sidewalk.
If Zimmerman had the gun in his hand when he was chasing Martin, why would Martin double back from refuge in his own home and confront an armed man? If the gun stayed in Zimmerman’s hand, why did Zimmerman wait until Martin broke his nose and pounded his head on the ground?
The sum total of the conversation between Martin and Zimmerman, as reported by Dee Dee, was Martin saying “what you following me for” and Zimmerman saying “what are you doing around here”. Dee Dee then reported a “bump” and the sounds of a struggle, during which Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose, knocked him down, and pounded his head on the ground. No mention whatever of “let’s settle this like men” or anything of the sort. So for your scenario to be reasonable, Zimmerman confronts Martin with a gun, Martin attacks and breaks his nose, then Zimmerman holsters his weapon, they fight and Zimmerman has his head beaten on the ground while screaming for help (and a witness sees them fighting, and Martin is on top, as yet unshot), then Zimmerman redraws his weapon and fires once. This sounds reasonable to you?
You say this a lot, and I still don’t see the relevance. Black people were mistreated fifty years ago, therefore a black teenager should attack a stranger on the street, or if the cops pull you over, you should jump out of the car and run for it?
None of my great-grandparents were ever lynched, and even I know the drill - if the cops pull you over, you turn off the engine, you turn on your emergency flashers, you roll the window half way down, and you wait to see what the cop wants. My father taught me that. And my beloved judo sensei taught me the corollary - if he’s got a gun, don’t make any sudden movements. That has nothing to do with being black, or white, or orange with pink polka dots - it has to do with not getting shot.
In the large majority of cases, yes, the way the person getting shot behaved is the problem.
Castile didn’t deserve to be shot. OTOH when the police pull you over, saying “I’ve got a gun” and then suddenly reaching for your pocket is probably not a good idea. If someone, black or white or Asian or Hispanic or Trobriand fucking Islander, if you take on the responsibility of carrying a gun, you take on the responsibility of saying in a loud distinct voice when the cops pull you over “I have a license to carry a gun” and then wait to see what the cop says. If he says “don’t reach for it” you don’t fucking reach for your wallet. Especially not with your wife and child in the car with you.
This is not rocket science. And it has little to do with race, and it is not the first sound of the jackboots of fascism, and it does not demonstrate that the KKK has declared open season on anyone darker than a Starbucks café latte.
It is worth noting Slager was never convicted in a court of law, and the one trial he was put to was a mistrial. Groubert never went to trial at all. Both men pled guilty to lesser charges.
I am being followed by a man with a gun. I’ve lost him, and I am a few steps away from my own door. The “only rational response” is go back and find him and attack him with my fists?
No, he has you down pat. You want to make the Zimmerman-Martin shooting about “Because black people in the history of this nation” when the the real issue is “Zimmerman and Martin that night and in that place.”
No – my discussion of history is about the larger issue of law enforcement, while my discussion of Zimmerman and Martin has been about the details of that encounter (and Zimmerman’s behavior since).
If you want to know what I’m thinking, just ask. Please don’t try and read my mind; it just makes the mind-reader look silly.
But every time I bring up the details of that encounter, and point out how they contradict the scenario of racist vigilante scumbag and innocent black youth, you ignore it and repeat some other unfounded speculation. The shooting of Martin was unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with what happened fifty years ago. The shooting of Scott was unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with what happened fifty years ago. The shooting of Castile was unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with what happened fifty years ago.
Black people in America do not get shot, by and large, for reasons that are any different than the reasons that white people get shot.
People, including cops, do stupid shit sometimes. Sometimes that means they get shot, sometimes it means they shoot someone else. That’s terrible. But it’s got nothing to do with racism.
There’s a couple of disconnects, but one of them is the interpretation of the events of the case. “Close” and “nearby” and other stuff like that really does require interpretation. I live “close” and “nearby” Georgetown, and I walk there regularly, but it still takes me 20 minutes to get there.
There really can be disagreements about what the evidence of the case indicates. I understand that the jury didn’t find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for guilt, but the evidence can reasonably be interpreted to explain many possible scenarios, both that portray Zimmerman or Martin as more to blame for the encounter.
Another disconnect – I’m talking about history, but I’m also talking about brutality and discrimination today. That’s just probably something we disagree on.
I disagree to some extent, especially in the overall context of how law enforcement treats people.
I disagree with this too. I think some of it is explained by racism and related concepts.
I’m sure there are some pretty fundamental disagreements here, but they are honest disagreements.
I know what you are thinking. You’ve posted about it in this and a million other threads. At great length and with no little amount of repetition. Please don’t try to spin your remarks to mean something different from what you have plainly said.
You mean the details of the Zimmerman/Martin case that we’ve been discussing (and disagreeing about) at length? I have posted about that in a few threads, but AFAIK this is the only one in which you’ve explicitly denied I’ve posted about those details just a few posts after several in which I do indeed discuss those details.
Maybe you missed them? I’ve talked about other things, sure, related to law enforcement in general, in addition to the detailed discussion about the events of the Zimmerman case we’ve been discussing.
So far I don’t believe that you actually know what I’m thinking, considering how wrong you’ve been in these last two posts. But I’m happy to tell you if you’d like to know – just ask.
Martin walked to “right by his father’s house” while he was talking to Dee Dee, and after Zimmerman had spotted and then lost him.
Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin at 7:13:10pm. Martin’s phone call to Dee Dee ended at 7:15:43pm. During that phone call, Dee Dee said that Martin was “right by his father’s house”, that he and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other, and that Martin had stopped running, but managed to return to find Zimmerman and attack him. Therefore Martin had 2 minutes and 23 seconds to get “right by his father’s house”, and then get back, without running. (Cite.) Please explain what interpretation of “close” and “nearby” means further than a walking person can get in a minute and twelve seconds.
We’re talking Trayvon Martin here, not Usain Bolt.
Yes, there can. Some disagreements are based on logic. Others aren’t.
I just did. I live close and nearby to Georgetown. If I’m on my way to meet a friend and they call me to see why I’m late, I might say I’m “close” or “nearby”, but nonetheless be more than minutes away.
Perhaps we disagree on which of these are which. It’s okay; it happens.
You’re missing the point - Martin was not more than minutes away, he was “right by his father’s house”, in the sense that he could make it back to attack Zimmerman in a minute or so. So the interpretation that he was as far from his father’s house as you are from Georgetown is wrong.
No, I don’t think we disagree on which is which. Opinions which can be disproven logically, or which are contradicted by the evidence, are not based on logic.
The idea that Zimmerman approached Martin with gun in hand can be disproven logically, because if someone is chasing you with a gun and you feel threatened, you don’t go looking for him after you have lost him. And it is contradicted by the evidence of Dee Dee’s report of the phone call, and the fact that the fight lasted over a minute before Zimmerman shot Martin. The idea that Martin was actually up to a half mile away can be disproven logically, because walkers cannot cover a mile round-trip in a minute. And it is contradicted by the evidence of the times at which the various phone calls started and ended.
So we can agree - those opinions are not based on logic.
Nope to all of this. I don’t want any untrained, impulsive, hot-headed men armed with loaded guns slinking around my neighborhood after people they’ve profiled as criminals based on nothing but their own biased perceptions. I repeat: do. not. want. this.
If Zimmerman was concerned about Martin, his actions should have been limited to just calling 911. Getting out of his car and running after the kid in the dark are actions that would put a reasonable person in fear of their lives. Because Zimmerman prejudged the kid as bad, he withheld the minimal level of respect one would normally extend a stranger. This prejudice ultimately led to Martin’s death.
Zimmerman said that he had lost sight of Martin. Dee Dee reported that Martin told her that they had lost sight of each other. Dee Dee told Martin to go into his father’s house.