Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[FBM]

I'm suspending judgement based on the obvious fact that I don't actually know and am unwilling to commit the deductive fallacy because of any political or emotional bias. Would that others were so diligent.

It's not a deductive fallacy to suspect young black males commit crimes at a far greater rate than average. It's called pattern recognition.

It's a deductive fallacy to apply that general observation to the specific instance of Martin. The larger trend does not prove that Martin was guilty. That is exactly the core of the fallacy.

[maiforpeace]

I'm suspending judgement based on the obvious fact that I don't actually know and am unwilling to commit the deductive fallacy because of any political or emotional bias. Would that others were so diligent.

It's not a deductive fallacy to suspect young black males commit crimes at a far greater rate than average. It's called pattern recognition.

It's a deductive fallacy to apply that general observation to the specific instance of Martin. The larger trend does not prove that Martin was guilty. That is exactly the core of the fallacy.

Stop trying to be logical. This is an atheist forum.

[Tyrannical]

I'm suspending judgement based on the obvious fact that I don't actually know and am unwilling to commit the deductive fallacy because of any political or emotional bias. Would that others were so diligent.

It's not a deductive fallacy to suspect young black males commit crimes at a far greater rate than average. It's called pattern recognition.

It's a deductive fallacy to apply that general observation to the specific instance of Martin. The larger trend does not prove that Martin was guilty. That is exactly the core of the fallacy.

You have pattern recognition confused with pattern matching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_matching

[kiki5711]

Really, talk about twisting words around. It's making me dizzy.

[kiki5711]

I'm suspending judgement based on the obvious fact that I don't actually know and am unwilling to commit the deductive fallacy because of any political or emotional bias. Would that others were so diligent.

It's not a deductive fallacy to suspect young black males commit crimes at a far greater rate than average. It's called pattern recognition.

It's a deductive fallacy to apply that general observation to the specific instance of Martin. The larger trend does not prove that Martin was guilty. That is exactly the core of the fallacy.

You have pattern recognition confused with pattern matching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_matching

lack of common sense if what I sense.

[Tyrannical]

Really, talk about twisting words around. It's making me dizzy.

Two different words with two different meanings.
I know your native language has the complexity to make the distinction between the two concepts, so it shouldn't be an intellectual obstacle.

[Seth]

I'm suspending judgement based on the obvious fact that I don't actually know and am unwilling to commit the deductive fallacy because of any political or emotional bias. Would that others were so diligent.

It's not a deductive fallacy to suspect young black males commit crimes at a far greater rate than average. It's called pattern recognition.

It's a deductive fallacy to apply that general observation to the specific instance of Martin. The larger trend does not prove that Martin was guilty. That is exactly the core of the fallacy.

I agree. It is not racist to note that young black males are disproportionately involved in street crime. That's a simple statistical fact. It is a deductive fallacy however to apply this statistic to any particular young black male absent any evidence that he falls into that category.

The question here would be whether or not the evidence in our grasp regarding Martin's behavior justifiably places him in that category.

Currently, the evidence to do so is somewhat scant, but there is some evidence pointing in that direction, what with the burglary tool and the jewelry, as opposed to Martin having a squeaky-clean personal profile.

I cannot say that Martin does fall into that category based on the evidence I have in front of me, but I can look at the evidence and see how easy it would be for an angry young black male to feel disrespected by a zealous neighborhood watch member known to be aggressive in his practices and for this to lead to an attack by said angry young black male on the resident. I can also see a possibility, though somewhat smaller, that Zimmerman so egregiously provoked Martin that it is plausible that he could be considered the initial aggressor in the conflict that ended up with Martin being shot. This is not to say that Zimmerman might not have been justified in shooting to save his life because his opponent got the best of him in the fight, but it could possibly remove Zimmerman's legal justification to use deadly force under the law if he was indeed so aggressive as to trigger Martin's right to self defense.

However, given the delay and distance between Zimmerman's last sighting of Martin suggested by the dispatch tapes, and the later claimed attack from behind, it may also be, legally speaking, that even if Zimmerman WAS the initial aggressor, that his withdrawal from the immediate confrontation "reset" the self-defense clock, so to speak. That is one of the provisions of the Colorado law, though I'm not familiar with all the details of the Florida law.

If (in Colorado) one is the initial aggressor in a fight, one loses the protection of the self-defense law unless and until one has made a manifest and clear effort to end the fight and withdraw from it. If one does this, then one's right to use deadly force in self defense is restored by the attempt to end the conflict. This is a necessary nuance of the law to prevent the victim of the initial aggression from being allowed to continue to attack someone who is trying to end the confrontation.

So, in the law, if Zimmerman had used "fighting words" against Martin during his initial confrontation which provoked Martin to immediate violence, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in using immediate deadly force unless he reasonably believed his life was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. But even an initial aggressor in a confrontation has a right to defend his life if the victim is using unreasonable physical force against him in retaliation for the attack.

This is where the "you may only meet force with equal force" concept comes into play.

Suppose Zimmerman gets in Martin's face and uses racial epithets and other "fighting words" insults that are calculated and intended to incite an immediate breach of the peace (a fight), and Martin immediately punches Zimmerman in the face. In this case, Zimmerman would not have a right of self defense because he was the initial aggressor unless Martin took his immediate emotional response too far. Martin was not legally permitted to assault Zimmerman, but he MAY BE forgiven his assault if the provocation was substantial and the response an immediate emotional one and not a delayed, calculated attack in retribution at a later time, even a few moments later. The key to the "fighting words" exception is that the insult must be so egregious and calculated to incite violence that any reasonable person in a like situation would have responded by hitting Zimmerman. In such a case Zimmerman would be guilty of a crime like harassment or disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors, and Martin might have his emotional, but short-lived and "reasonable" response to the insult overlooked. So, had Zimmerman said "What the fuck are you doing in my neighborhood nigger?" and Martin had immediately punched him in the nose once or twice, and then stopped himself from further attack, Zimmerman would NOT have been justified in using deadly force in response.

But the evidence points towards a substantial time delay (minutes) between the time Zimmerman first confronts Martin and the second confrontation in which Martin is killed. This suggests, but is not conclusive of Martin's simmering anger at being braced by Zimmerman the first time resulting in Martin becoming the initial aggressor in a second and distinct confrontation that ended with his being shot. If that is the case, then Zimmerman was likely justified in using deadly force in self defense if things were as he claims and as the physical evidence we have before us suggests, because it would therefore have been Martin who initiated the attack on Zimmerman that resulted in his death.

The prior confrontation, no matter how egregious the insult, would NOT JUSTIFY Martin taking some minutes to mull over the disrespect and make a decision to attack Zimmerman in retribution from behind, much less do so in a manner that threatened death or serious bodily harm to Zimmerman as is claimed. That's not how the "fighting words" exception works. Unless Martin acted "instinctively" and immediately to a grave insult so offensive that any reasonable person would have done the same thing and limited his response to that insult so as not to produce a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm in Zimmerman, Martin would not be in any way justified in attacking Zimmerman later, and his proper legal response would have been to contact the police and swear out a complaint of disorderly conduct or harassment against Zimmerman and get his retribution in court.

[kiki5711]

Finally something I can truly AGREE with you Seth.

Except this:

what with the burglary tool and the jewelry, as opposed to Martin having a squeaky-clean personal profile

.

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

“It’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” said attorney Benjamin Crump. “They never heard this, and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him,” Crump said.

No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”
“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2 ... rylink=cpy

this does not prove he was a thief, and the items in his school bag were placed there by him, hence his graffiti WTF. And who in high school DID NOT smoke pot? Anyone?

[Tyrannical]

this does not prove he was a thief, and the items in his school bag were placed there by him, hence his graffiti WTF. And who in high school DID NOT smoke pot? Anyone?

It might prove he was a thief. I'm curious how that school indecent really panned out and perhaps in the future more facts regarding it might come out. Surely that jewelry must have belonged to someone? How did it end up in Trayvon's possession?

[Animavore]

Zimmerman willfully and intentionally instigated an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in a dead kid.

Do we want to live in a society where that is commonplace?

Yes.

You are supposed to question strangers in your private neighborhood.

Are you?

I hope you also have the right to tell such people to fuck off and mind their own business without threat of being shot.

A little background......

The reason for this effectiveness is rather simple: Involving community members in watch programs decreases opportunities for criminals to commit crime rather than attempting to change their behavior or motivation.

Today's Neighborhood Watch Program is an effective means of crime control and neighborhood cohesiveness. While not all of the programs in place today go by the same name, they all accomplish the same goal: to bring community members together to fight crime. As Minor aptly wrote, "Neighborhood is the key to maintaining successful relationships."

http://www.usaonwatch.org/about/history.aspx?

Neighborhood Watch is one of the oldest and best-known crime prevention concepts in North America. In the late 1960s, an increase in crime heightened the need for a crime prevention initiative focused on residential areas and involving local citizens. The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) responded, creating the National Neighborhood Watch Program in 1972 to assist citizens and law enforcement.

In 2002, the National Sheriff's Association in partnership with USA Freedom Corps, Citizen Corps and the U.S. Department of Justice-launched USAonWatch, the face of the revitalized Neighborhood Watch initiative, which represents the expanded role of watch programs throughout the United States.

What are you trying to say here exactly? It doesn't change anything. Anyone asks me what I'm doing will be told to fuck off. The only people to ever question me like that were the Garda and they were told to fuck off too. The fucking cheek of that. I mean - who does that?

[kiki5711]

this does not prove he was a thief, and the items in his school bag were placed there by him, hence his graffiti WTF. And who in high school DID NOT smoke pot? Anyone?

It might prove he was a thief. I'm curious how that school indecent really panned out and perhaps in the future more facts regarding it might come out. Surely that jewelry must have belonged to someone? How did it end up in Trayvon's possession?

No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by schools police.

did you read this part or did you just conveniently missed it?

[amused]

Nothing about Trayvon's past is at all relevant. Zimmerman did not know any of that history when he murdered him.

[Tyrannical]

What are you trying to say here exactly? It doesn't change anything. Anyone asks me what I'm doing will be told to fuck off. The only people to ever question me like that were the Garda and they were told to fuck off too. The fucking cheek of that. I mean - who does that?

You are obligated to identify your self while on private property.

Seriously, Chris Rock explains it quite plainly. If you just use common sense......

[Animavore]

What are you trying to say here exactly? It doesn't change anything. Anyone asks me what I'm doing will be told to fuck off. The only people to ever question me like that were the Garda and they were told to fuck off too. The fucking cheek of that. I mean - who does that?

You are obligated to identify your self while on private property.

Seriously, Chris Rock explains it quite plainly. If you just use common sense......

What are talking about private property? I'm not talking about walking into someone's garden. I'm talking about walking through a residential area. Who has the right to question my reasons for walking through an area?
No one.

[Animavore]

What are you trying to say here exactly? It doesn't change anything. Anyone asks me what I'm doing will be told to fuck off. The only people to ever question me like that were the Garda and they were told to fuck off too. The fucking cheek of that. I mean - who does that?

You are obligated to identify your self while on private property.

Seriously, Chris Rock explains it quite plainly. If you just use common sense......

What are talking about private property? I'm not talking about walking into someone's garden. I'm talking about walking through a residential area. Who has the right to question my reasons for walking through an area?
No one.