politicartoons | Leanin'

I'll grant that the domestic violence thing was not an arrest but a granted restraining order - my sentence gave the wrong impression. That he was arrested for assaulting a police officer is a matter of public record, of course.

He began making frequent phone calls to the police prior to the formation of the Neighborhood Watch in his community, and a volunteer coordinator was sent out at his behest to discuss setting up a Neighborhood Watch in late 2011. In the presentation that coordinator gave, she clarified that the Watch is NOT supposed to be a vigilante police organization, and that the job of the official "neighborhood watch coordinator" is not to pursue or apprehend criminals but to liaise with the police.

The NSA (National Sheriffs; Association, not National Security Agency, BTW) does not list Zimmerman's neighborhood watch as one of their registered groups, and their national policy explicitly instructs against carrying a gun while patrolling in a volunteer capacity.

And the hair-splitting as far as the word "pursuit" is kind of silly. He drove around following Martin through the neighborhood, and then got out of his car and followed him on foot. Whether you consider that to be a legitimate thing to do or not, it's still a thing he did.

That he was arrested for assaulting a police officer is a matter of public record, of course.

And the charge was dropped.

He began making frequent phone calls to the police prior to the formation of the Neighborhood Watch in his community, and a volunteer coordinator was sent out at his behest to discuss setting up a Neighborhood Watch in late 2011. In the presentation that coordinator gave, she clarified that the Watch is NOT supposed to be a vigilante police organization, and that the job of the official "neighborhood watch coordinator" is not to pursue or apprehend criminals but to liaise with the police.

Okay. And?

The NSA (National Sheriffs; Association, not National Security Agency, BTW) does not list Zimmerman's neighborhood watch as one of their registered groups, and their national policy explicitly instructs against carrying a gun while patrolling in a volunteer capacity.

So the Zimmerman watch wasn't listed with the NSA, nor does it have to be. What does this mean?

Furthermore, if it's not part of their "registered groups," why on earth would they be beholden to their national policy?

And the hair-splitting as far as the word "pursuit" is kind of silly. He drove around following Martin through the neighborhood, and then got out of his car and followed him on foot. Whether you consider that to be a legitimate thing to do or not, it's still a thing he did.

You still don't have this right. He "drove around" to go to the grocery store and spotted Martin. He then called the police. When the police asked where he was, he got out of the car to find out where Martin went - thus the misunderstanding of the instruction (which the dispatcher, under oath, understood how it could be construed the way Zimmerman did) and the further instruction of "you don't have to do that" after the fact once he learned Zimmerman had left his car and was "following" him.

So the "hair splitting" is more one of the difference between some guy chasing a kid around the neighborhood in a vehicle and on foot, and a guy on the phone with police attempting to ascertain the location of another suspicious person (because, as Zimmerman and those in the neighborhood had come to learn, "they always get away").

See, this is exactly what I mean. It's so important for you to argue every fine point of every detail about Zimmerman because we can't PROVE a pattern of anything and if we can't PROVE it how dare we say it, but a dead black kid has Skittles and a drink and all of a sudden the only reasonable "likely" conclusion is that he was high off his ass (in the face of all available toxicology evidence) and obviously engaged in criminal activity and looking for trouble.

There might actually be a perfectly innocuous explanation for every single one of Zimmerman's actions. But in that case there's sure as hell an innocuous explanation for Trayvon's convenience store purchases.

ee, this is exactly what I mean. It's so important for you to argue every fine point of every detail about Zimmerman because we can't PROVE a pattern of anything and if we can't PROVE it how dare we say it, but a dead black kid has Skittles and a drink and all of a sudden the only reasonable "likely" conclusion is that he was high off his ass (in the face of all available toxicology evidence) and obviously engaged in criminal activity and looking for trouble.

Never claimed the latter. Why are you struggling with this?

A claim is made about Zimmerman that is false. Should I accept the false record, or correct it? I'll always go with the latter.

There might actually be a perfectly innocuous explanation for every single one of Zimmerman's actions. But in that case there's sure as hell an innocuous explanation for Trayvon's convenience store purchases.

I have said numerous times now that this was the case. The question is about likelihood. You've based your point of view on Zimmerman on false information. If I've done the same to Martin, I'd want to know about it.

Well, how about the part where the fucking toxicology report says he wasn't high on "drank". It came back positive for THC, which means that he smoked pot any time in the 4-6 weeks prior to his death, but not for opiates, of which codeine is one. But no, he had candy and a drink, much have been for nefarious purposes.

Well, how about the part where the fucking toxicology report says he wasn't high on "drank".

Of course it wasn't, he didn't get back home.

But no, he had candy and a drink, much have been for nefarious purposes.

Again, we can believe that it was just an innocent run for juice and Skittles, or we can look at Martin's previous actions and judge the likelihood of this simply being candy and a drink. You're free to do the former, I just don't see how the evidence supports it, and you're not making a very good argument up to this point.

And here's where I think you go off the rails, though. I look at Zimmerman's previous actions and judge the likelihood of him being the attacked party in fear for his life in an altercation with a black youth, and it doesn't come up super likely for me. But you've been the standard-bearer all along for "Just because you THINK this is likely/unlikely doesn't mean there's proof". Which, you know, fine. But then fuck, man, be the standard-bearer for Trayvon in this accusation! If your concern is with people judging people guilty because of implications, doesn't it concern you to think that someone would jump to the conclusion that this dead kid was a drug abuser from the fact that he bought candy and a drink? And wouldn't it concern you further that someone would jump to the conclusion that because he used drugs he was a violent sociopath? Like, why is rushing to judgment okay here but it wasn't okay with Zimmerman?

I look at Zimmerman's previous actions and judge the likelihood of him being the attacked party in fear for his life in an altercation with a black youth, and it doesn't come up super likely for me.

Because you have a distorted view of his life, based on what you've written here.

But then fuck, man, be the standard-bearer for Trayvon in this accusation! If your concern is with people judging people guilty because of implications, doesn't it concern you to think that someone would jump to the conclusion that this dead kid was a drug abuser from the fact that he bought candy and a drink?

It would, yes, if that was the only piece of evidence to support it. The problem is that you're thinking of the evening in isolation as opposed to part of a pattern of behavior. I mean, the reason he was in Sanford in the first place is because he was suspended from school for drugs. This didn't come out of nowhere.

Yes, there's a danger in this road in that it triggers a lot of stereotypes for some people, like the guy in the other thread and the OP here. That such a suggestion brings out nastiness in others does not mean we should ignore what's in front of us, either.

And wouldn't it concern you further that someone would jump to the conclusion that because he used drugs he was a violent sociopath? Like, why is rushing to judgment okay here but it wasn't okay with Zimmerman?

I guess i'm not seeing the rush to judgement here. Nor, at this point, am I alleging a rush to judgement with Zimmerman anymore, for that matter. The facts with Zimmerman are very much in the open now, and there's really no excuse for the myths at this point.

It would, yes, if that was the only piece of evidence to support it. The problem is that you're thinking of the evening in isolation as opposed to part of a pattern of behavior. I mean, the reason he was in Sanford in the first place is because he was suspended from school for drugs. This didn't come out of nowhere.

And the assumption that Zimmerman was racially profiling didn't come out of nowhere either. He had called the police literally dozens of times complaining about black youth in his neighborhood, whom he considered to be responsible for crimes. He said multiple times, including the night he killed Trayvon, that he was deeply concerned about black youths "getting away with it" - "it" being the crimes that he assumed black youths were committing. The assumption that he was prone to violence, again, did not come out of nowhere - an arrest for assaulting a police officer and a restraining order for domestic violence are as much a "pattern of behavior" as an assumption that marijuana use means opiate abuse.

I guess i'm not seeing the rush to judgement here.

You're not, huh? The dead kid tested negative for the drugs you're accusing him of consuming, and you and the rest of the "He deserved to die" crew are all "Well OBVIOUSLY he was just ON HIS WAY to do drugs because WHY ELSE would he have a drink and a snack on him" and you don't see any haste in that judgment?

And the assumption that Zimmerman was racially profiling didn't come out of nowhere either.

No, it did. Your perspective is skewed.

He had called the police literally dozens of times complaining about black youth in his neighborhood, whom he considered to be responsible for crimes.

And how is this evidence of racial profiling? Is there something to suggest that there wasn't a problem with black youths in his neighborhood? Was that an incorrect assertion on his part?

He said multiple times, including the night he killed Trayvon, that he was deeply concerned about black youths "getting away with it" - "it" being the crimes that he assumed black youths were committing.

I assume you mean the quote "always get away," as the term "getting away with it" never shows up in the 911 transcript. That was specifically in reference to the fact that the last few times people had called, Zimmerman included, they did get away. His frustration was clear.

The assumption that he was prone to violence, again, did not come out of nowhere - an arrest for assaulting a police officer and a restraining order for domestic violence are as much a "pattern of behavior" as an assumption that marijuana use means opiate abuse.

Not really. His restraining order for domestic violence has not been disclosed as to what it was about. "Domestic violence" is a catch-all for a few different things, and he requested and got one as well.

His arrest for assaulting a police officer happened, but the charges were dropped. It clearly wasn't an issue.

Meanwhile, my assumption is not marijuana use means opiate abuse. It means that his prior statements from his Facebook regarding opiate abuse, specifically the type that this talking about, lead us to that conclusion. That's what's meant by prior behavior.

You're not, huh? The dead kid tested negative for the drugs you're accusing him of consuming

When did I accuse him of being high when he was shot again?

and you and the rest of the "He deserved to die" crew

Don't group me into that.

are all "Well OBVIOUSLY he was just ON HIS WAY to do drugs because WHY ELSE would he have a drink and a snack on him" and you don't see any haste in that judgment?

Haste implies we don't know anything, and that this is new information. Neither point is true.

So let me ask you something. If you're NOT contending that Trayvon Martin was high on the night he was killed - and you don't want to be lumped in with those saying he deserved to die because he used drugs on other occasions - what IS the relevance of whether he was going to drink his Arizona straight or procure codeine cough syrup later on?

If you're NOT contending that Trayvon Martin was high on the night he was killed - and you don't want to be lumped in with those saying he deserved to die because he used drugs on other occasions - what IS the relevance of whether he was going to drink his Arizona straight or procure codeine cough syrup later on?

for the case or overall?

For the case, basically nothing. I have already said there's good reason it wasn't admitted.

Overall? There's a reason people want to cast Martin as a good kid who got chased down by a vigilante. There's a reason to believe that's not really true.

Overall? There's a reason people want to cast Martin as a good kid who got chased down by a vigilante. There's a reason to believe that's not really true.

And what reason would that be? I'm dead fuckin' serious here. So maybe he tried some recreational drugs. At age 17. So the fuck what? I genuinely do not see what purpose the character assassination serves, particularly if you're actually acknowledging that he wasn't high on the night he was killed.

Are you saying he couldn't be a good kid if he used drugs on occasion? Are you saying the loss of his life is less of a loss because he drank cough syrup? Like, genuinely, what the fuck does it have to do with ANYTHING?

I think I've been clear at this point. I don't know what else I can say.

You've said it's meaningful. You've said it's relevant. You've said it provides a refutation to the "liberal" narrative that Trayvon's killing was not warranted. You have not explained WHY it is any of these things. And you have provided only the shakiest and sketchiest of evidence that it's even potentially true.

All kids experiment with altering their consciousness - this is natural thing - and its not really a bad thing, if handled right by a parent. Handling it wrong can be harmful though.

I really was/am a square.

"And the charge was dropped.
"
Disingenuous. The charge was dropped as part of a deferred prosecution process, where Zimmerman had to take alcohol courses. Soooo yeah no.

So the charge was dropped. Sounds like it's exactly what I said!

The charge was dropped because of a deal, not because of Zimmerman's innocence.

His guilt was never established, actually.

Leanin'

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject