I’ve agreed that he called on a Hispanic and white trio five years earlier.
This means that he didn’t call only black people. Do you not understand how my agreement that undercuts my original statement is an admission that my original statement wasn’t correct?
If you’ll note, when I backed up by original claim with a cite, I said I was open to another reputable cite.
None of this alters the fact that Zimmerman had a habit of finding blacks suspicious more often than any other race, and to the exclusion of any other race for the last several years.
Right?
Also, will you admit that by saying 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, that you’re being very, very dishonest? Because most of the calls he made were about things like open garage doors, alarms going off, or personal disputes he had with other people. By saying that 5 out of 44 calls were about blacks, you create the utterly dishonest perception that all of the 44 calls were about suspicious persons.
Can we agree that you’re being very, very dishonest?
Out of the calls where race is mentioned, there are 5 black and 3 non-black. There’s nearly 40 calls where race isn’t mentioned. I don’t think that proves anything, and the only reason it suggests anything is because of the cluster of calls about black males recently.
It’s only profiling if he ignored non-black people acting in the same way as the black people he called the police on.
It’s also profiling if he thought I’d better check this guy out because he’s black and we’ve had a rash of suspicious black guys AND the only thing the suspicious black guys had in common with Trayvon was skin color.. In the calls where race was identified the Hispanic and white guys had burglary tools. Articulable evidence if you will.
But I also understand how you didn’t actually say “I was wrong,” nor did you acknowledge that the Hispanic and white call was not the only call that failed to meet your original claim.
Yes. Although it’s interesting to note that while you were wrong, Time was not – that is, in their piece, they accurately stated that most the calls between August and February were about black males. You misquoted (or misrepresented) Time by saying that ALL calls, period, were about black people.
No. No race was specified for the majority of his calls. The female in Oct 2010 is not identified by race. Neither are the people at the disruptive parties, the drivers, or the landlord. Only if you draw an arbitrary line at April 22nd, 2011, going forward, can you make that claim.
No more so than you: The other people he called about in the past were all black. No matter how you slice it, that’s factually incorrect. My statement, in contrast, is factually true, and even if you find yourself confused, I helpfully explained exactly what was in those 44 calls by both linking to my source and providing a listed summary so that every reader could see what those 44 calls were.
It’s true I could have culled out the pothole and open garage calls as involving no person at all, but the fact that the 44 calls did not always involve a person was ultra clear without even clicking to follow a link.
In the case of the Treyvon Martin call, he initially didn’t even mention race. It was only after the dispatcher asked him about it that he supplied the race.
Yes, at a hearing. But that’s the second threshold. The first is the determination by a police agency, and they must be convinced specifically that there is probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful before they can make an arrest.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Martin was black before Zimmermand mentioned it to the operator, you know. We’re trying to figure out if Zimmerman profiled Martin, not whether or not he was johnny-on-the-spot with a description.
The difference, is I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone. I mis-remembered and was open to opposing cites and accepted it immediately.
You outright attempted to make people believe something that isn’t true, that there were 44 calls about people and only five were about blacks.
In any case, the last five were about blacks, and that at least weakly suggests that Zimmerman keep a weather-eye out for blacks who were doing strange things… like walking slowly.
Maybe I am missing something - but what difference does it make if Zimmerman did profile Martin? It allows you to huff and puff and get all outraged, but legally, who cares if Martin’s race and age made Zimmerman more suspicious of him? There’s still nothing provably illegal about what he did, from the evidence released so far.
This is me realizing that you were correct. And that, in my opinion, it is a small detractor from the overall issue of Zimmerman racial profiling.
This is me admitting that he called on the three non-black people you mentioned five years ago. I’m stipulating that the calls included (five years ago) some non-black people. I at that point realized that my previous cite was narrowed to the months before the shooting.
Yeah, but even if he got on TV tomorrow and admitted that he was more suspicious of Martin because he was a black teenager, that is a long way from having a “fevered racist mind”.
Recognizing that, statistically, a black teenager wearing a hoodie is more likely to commit a crime than, say, a 50 year-old white dude wearing a polo shirt and Chinos, does not mean that you are out to shoot every hoodie-sporting black teenager you see. Profiling is not illegal, or irrational, and pretending to be outraged because Zimmerman may have gaspthought about race is just ridiculous.
Everyone who bitches about the TSA strip-searching 85-year-old grandmothers from Omaha because their underwire set off the metal detector is essentially arguing for more profiling.