tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8215108987370340391..comments2024-03-29T03:56:03.736-04:00Comments on the daily howler: The fake facts never die in these cases!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9764821037458528802013-07-16T16:47:13.570-04:002013-07-16T16:47:13.570-04:00Anonymous on 7/16/13 @ 11:57A,
I'm sorry, but...Anonymous on 7/16/13 @ 11:57A,<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I didn't think it necessary to reiterate the "known evidence." The fact that there was a confrontation, that it got physical, that there was a struggle possibly over a gun, that Zimmerman had injuries to his face and the back of his head, that Martin had abrasions on his knuckles -- all of these fit with a narrative that says that Martin was reasonably fearful for his life, either because he was threatened or because he was mistakenly but reasonably felt threatened.<br /><br />You seem to think that your story "uses" actual evidence and is therefore a narrative of what happened and that my story doesn't use actual evidence and is faulty because it cannot be disproved. But both stories are consistent with the evidence, and neither can be disproved by the evidence available. The law depends on knowing the crucial fact of who, if anyone, provoked whom. And for that we have no independent, trustworthy evidence that could have chosen between our narratives. It's a tragic irony that the reason is that Z killed M, although had that not been the case, we might have ended up with conflicting stories of interested parties in an assault case.<br /><br />Was a UFO involved? No. The law does not contemplate an acquittal based on certainty without doubt. Nor does it demand a conviction based on any narrative that fits the known evidence<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34098636597123133642013-07-16T15:57:56.760-04:002013-07-16T15:57:56.760-04:00"Martin glorified violence!!!"
Wow, tal..."Martin glorified violence!!!"<br /><br />Wow, talk about making up narratives...why is everyone forgetting that Zimmerman was arrested for assulting a cop and resisting arrest in 2005. And had a restraining order placed on him by his then fiance? <br /><br />On the other hand, prior to the night in question, Martin showed violent behavior when he smoked pot? drew graffiti? cut class? dear god, you people are insane.<br /><br />Hank BorelliAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47796974300644612362013-07-16T11:57:06.663-04:002013-07-16T11:57:06.663-04:00deadrat,
You say, "My scenarios fit all the ...deadrat,<br /><br />You say, "My scenarios fit all the known evidence." Then procede with a long post that doesn't mention any evidence at all.<br /><br />There is a difference between a story that uses actual evidence, and a story that cannot be disproved by any evidence.<br /><br />Was a UFO involved? No known evidence rules that possibility out.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86633517227696573942013-07-16T11:56:21.561-04:002013-07-16T11:56:21.561-04:00Behold the power of narrative, H. Braintree! Read...Behold the power of narrative, H. Braintree! Read DAinCA @ 7:15A and repent as you weep.<br /><br />Martin glorified violence! (He had some pictures in his wallet.) He was "involved" with burglary! (Actually, he was accused of stealing.) He had done drugs! (He smoked pot.) He was suspended from school. (Once for tardiness, that miserable bastard.) How did DAinCA forget the graffiti on the lockers?<br /><br />And, of course, he "apparently" made an unprovoked, vicious assault on Zimmerman for no legal reason. So much worse that those unprovoked assaults that people make with legal reasons. But it only takes a paragraph of irrelevant ponderings about the Central Park jogger, before the "apparently" is gone, and DAinCA is lecturing the black community for excusing and ignoring Martin's violence.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16659690961910649262013-07-16T11:41:02.523-04:002013-07-16T11:41:02.523-04:00DAinCA,
You think a lot of things that don't ...DAinCA,<br /><br />You think a lot of things that don't turn out to be true. The state of Florida doesn't define crimes with thefreedictionary.com. It uses the Florida statutes, which define aggravated assault as assault with a deadly weapon or assault with intent to commit a felony.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38958079226696969682013-07-16T11:19:39.328-04:002013-07-16T11:19:39.328-04:00H. Braintree,
My scenarios fit all the known evid...H. Braintree,<br /><br />My scenarios fit all the known evidence. If Z threatened M, even if M felt reasonably but mistakenly threatened by Z, then M had the legal right to defend himself without waiting or warning or a duty to retreat. In neither of my scenarios, does Z pull out his gun. You don't have to draw a gun to threaten someone with it<br /><br />You say my explanations don't make sense, but that statement only makes sense if you believe that people always do sensible things. When it's dark, and they're scared or angry or surprised, they often don't. When they're seventeen, sometimes they don't, period.<br /><br />Your impassioned and capitalized defense of narrative doesn't make your story factual. You've got a narrative that seems to end with Martin being a violent fuckwit, but really that's where your narrative starts, and you've fit the known facts to it. Which doesn't make you wrong, but the law requires more.<br /><br />You say "to all appearances" M bashed Z's head on the sidewalk and conclude that was a criminal act. What you should say is that it appears to you that M committed a criminal act. Except for blaming the other party, this differs in no way from people who say that Z was armed and alive, and M wasn't and is dead, so Z murdered M.<br /><br />I'm not saying that your narratives are bad or that my narratives are good. Your narrative may even be the more likely. But the law doesn't permit criminal convictions on narratives that are anything less than excellent, so good in fact, that they tell us a story believable beyond a reasonable doubt. <br /><br />As to your last sentence, I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that you think defending fiction somehow settles factual matters or that you contemplate my bloody albeit metaphorical death for opposing that point of view.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78914259706597443452013-07-16T10:59:03.319-04:002013-07-16T10:59:03.319-04:00"fearful little scaredy-cat, into a tough-guy..."fearful little scaredy-cat, into a tough-guy American frontiersman"<br /><br />Have to agree with mch that this is the kind of "masculinist" stuff dragging things down!<br /><br />What, mch? Oh, it's some OTHER "masculinists" you have a problem with! <br /><br />We know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4044002599971913212013-07-16T09:54:58.071-04:002013-07-16T09:54:58.071-04:00Anonymous July 16, 2013 at 7:33 AM,
I'm with ...Anonymous July 16, 2013 at 7:33 AM,<br /><br />I'm with you. There is absolutely no proof that Zimmerman was one of the hundreds of thousands of gullible Americans who bought the NRA's propaganda that owning a gun turns you from a fearful little scaredy-cat, into a tough-guy American frontiersman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64993697704664908682013-07-16T09:51:39.538-04:002013-07-16T09:51:39.538-04:00Jesus Christ, are we now making believe smoking po...Jesus Christ, are we now making believe smoking pot and drinking beers makes one a delinquent? <br />I just changed my mind, thanks to this rant. I smoked pot and drank beers many times, and not once did I smash the head of a stranger off the sidewalk (unprovoked, of course). <br />I'm convinced. Zimmerman must have said or done something to provoke Martin.<br /><br />Reefer Madness lives!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7972519381763642172013-07-16T09:10:30.429-04:002013-07-16T09:10:30.429-04:00Dear DeadRat,
Please show me how your scenarios f...Dear DeadRat,<br /><br />Please show me how your scenarios fit the known evidence, please. If Zimmerman and Martin were fighting together please explain how there were no abrasions or such on Zimmerman's hands? Why are the only wound on Martin the gunshot and his hand abrasions? If Zimmerman pulls out his gun first, why in the world would Martin attack him instead of putting up his hands unless he was drugged or crazy? Your explanations really don't seem to make any sense. <br /><br />TDH concerns itself with narratives THAT ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE FACTS. Narratives are not bad if the conform to that which is factual, relevant and doesn't exclude information would be expected to change the narrative were it fairly acknowledged. And people who put across narratives are doing nothing wrong if they are willing to change their narratives if the relevant facts change as they sometimes do. What Bob is complaining about are people who use fake facts and who keep plugging the same narratives regardless of what was already factually known or any new information that comes in. <br /><br />Now that that's settled, why don't you do us all a favor by taking Occam's razor and slashing your wrists with it? Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-28062254495396230672013-07-16T08:48:05.752-04:002013-07-16T08:48:05.752-04:00How many of you spent your free time talking about...How many of you spent your free time talking about fighting, had pictures of guns in your wallet, were previously involved with burglary, smoked pot in addition to drinking, had been suspended from school twice in 6 months? How many of you used your walk home to go up to random adults and ask them if they had a problem with you? How many of you had abrasions on your hands from beating up any adult who didn't give the right answer to your questions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44653920345929946392013-07-16T08:20:36.114-04:002013-07-16T08:20:36.114-04:00A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or ...<i>A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely...</i><br /><br />http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aggravated+Assault<br /><br />I think that repeatedly banging someone's head on a cement sidewalk fits this definition. YMMV.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47496194208729982772013-07-16T07:59:12.290-04:002013-07-16T07:59:12.290-04:00"M committed aggravated assault"
That&..."M committed aggravated assault" <br /><br />That's great. The Zimmerman online defense team now actually bring charges and convict. "Aggravated" is a nice touch. Maybe later you can add a weapon specification for the deadly weapon sidewalk. Since the verdict we've added drug sales, gun running and now aggravated assault to the list of charges. <br /><br />Martin wasn't convicted of anything. He wasn't on trial. Had he been on trial he would have been represented. Actually, had MARTIN been on trial, you wouldn't have seen the trial, because it would have been held in a juvenile court, probably closed to media. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2365947452223292362013-07-16T07:49:26.225-04:002013-07-16T07:49:26.225-04:00I'm with myiq2xu. The only fitting response to...I'm with myiq2xu. The only fitting response to that earnest but foolish jeremiad is LOL. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91582640330750864222013-07-16T07:44:53.515-04:002013-07-16T07:44:53.515-04:00Well, first of all mch, what you wave away with a ...Well, first of all mch, what you wave away with a "who the hell cares" is an issue that mattered very much in the trial of George Zimmerman.<br /><br />Yes, ole George had the temerity to be self-interested enough not to want to be convicted for second degree murder, and a widely reported foregone conclusion that he had continued to follow Martin might have gotten him convicted.<br /><br />Now that might be a small matter to you, but some people don't wish a man to go to prison over media recklessness.<br /><br />In fact they feel so strongly about this they hold all questions of the "morality" of good judgment and racial stereotypes to be secondary to a less abstract sort of justice that was to be delivered in a court of law.<br /><br />If you find such a concern as being trivial next to the immorality of historic racism, you might ask yourself how Zimmerman's family would consider such a stance. Perhaps then you could work yourself into the place of considering that your unconcerned waving away of something so integral to Zimmerman's fate is a type of racial injustice too.<br />CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33187739868607730132013-07-16T07:33:21.300-04:002013-07-16T07:33:21.300-04:00"some wannabe yahoo who thought it would make..."some wannabe yahoo who thought it would make him a man to take one of us "suspects" down."<br /><br />Thanks for the bullshit story telling gcwall.<br /><br />What does it have to do with anything? Zip.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53855664032244425012013-07-16T07:30:09.793-04:002013-07-16T07:30:09.793-04:00deadrat is quite right.
We don't know.
Whi...deadrat is quite right. <br /><br />We don't know. <br /><br />Which is what makes the verdict correct. <br /><br />And also exactly what makes trying to make the case about racism in America so very very wrong and dangerous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25961442478383564692013-07-16T07:21:39.044-04:002013-07-16T07:21:39.044-04:00Now, mch, you've arbitrarily decided that we a...Now, mch, you've arbitrarily decided that we aren't "generous" to you! <br /><br />What a laugh, after you tell us we are racists and "masculinists," and that take glee in a young man's death.<br /><br />You are trying to leverage a death to your own agenda. GROTESQUE.<br /><br />You reject rationality, calling it "masculinist" when that suits you, while at the same time spewing such bile as "Z doesn't seem very manly." GROTESQUE.<br /><br />You produce slurs on your fellow commenters, implying they are racist and sexist for disagreeing with you, then claim they are ungenerous for calling out your nonsense for the freak show that it is. GROTESQUE.<br /><br />You try to make this trial and the discussion of it into "why this whole situation calls attention to real problems with racism" AND IN THE SAME BREATH assault other commenters with the claim that we want the trial to be a "vindication of our whole society and justice system vis-a-vis race." GROTESQUE.<br /><br />If you ever had anything of merit to contribute, you've lost it. You've gone quite insane, tilting at windmills in your own mind.<br /><br />Let's take some of these things again one by one, because I'm convinced you didn't hear them the first time:<br /><br />1) If you reject rationality, just shut up and go away.<br /><br />2) You can't try to make the case about race and also condemn others for making it about race, not without looking very, very stupid indeed.<br /><br />3) You can't be rude and ungenerous to others and then condemn them for being ungenerous, not without revealing yourself as a hypocrite.<br /><br />There is much more to say about your rhetorical tactics, none of it kind, but perhaps you should digest this small dose of reality before we move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53877016087647278352013-07-16T07:15:16.020-04:002013-07-16T07:15:16.020-04:00mch, you think you've been generous in your as...mch, you think you've been generous in your assumptions about Z, but I don't agree. A generous assumption about Z would be to believe him. His version was that M was reaching for the gun and had told Z that he was going to die. I don't know that this is true, but that's what a generous assumption would be.<br /><br />Were Z and M equally decent people? Numerous examples were given where Z went out of his way to help other people regardless of race. Z was the opposite of a racist. He was partly black. He had dated a black woman. He tutored black children as a volunteer. He had black relatives. OTOH Martin glorified violence and guns, based on the material on his phone. He apparently had committed robberies and done drugs. He was suspended from school. And, he apparently made an unprovoked vicious attack on Z, for no legal reason.<br /><br />I agree with you that Z used bad judgment. But, M committed aggravated assault. Those two sins aren't legally equal. IMHO they're not morally equal. Do you recall the Central Park jogger case? It was reported that a young woman jogging in Central Park was attacked by a gang of 6 young black men, who confessed to the crime. (Later facts apparently showed that the supposed assailants weren't guilty.) At the time, my friend Betty blamed the jogger, because the jogger had used bad judgment to be alone in that risky area. I think the jogger did use bad judgment, but bad judgment isn't a crime. Assault and battery and rape are crimes. I think Betty ought to have blamed the assailants.<br /><br />BTW I don't think the black community is served by minimizing crimes committed by young black men. Don't forget that the majority of black crime is against other blacks. Last year, 400 blacks were murdered in Chicago alone. So far this year, the murder rate is even higher. Presumably most of the murderers were black. I don't think the black community is helped by excusing or ignoring Trayvon Martin's violence. I think the black community is better served by efforts to reduce whatever societal and cultural factors made Trayvon Martin violent. BTW, by volunteering to tutor black children, Zimmerman was making such efforts.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76415683990468791952013-07-16T07:14:26.137-04:002013-07-16T07:14:26.137-04:00I'll try to do better, Anon.I'll try to do better, Anon.CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55419232219839789282013-07-16T07:08:09.745-04:002013-07-16T07:08:09.745-04:00Ah, here's a great example of reading comprehe...Ah, here's a great example of reading comprehension and an excellent example of what you do here.<br /><br />I didn't call the feelings of the Martin family tripe and I didn't say the same about the feelings of black people.<br /><br />What I called tripe is your way of arguing that people are abetting racists, minimizing societal ills, and showing no concern for the wounds of Martin's family simply because they do not view media hype, hooey, and reckless disregard for the truth as being of marginal importance next to some object lesson on endemic racial injustice. <br /><br />That tripe isn't an argument. It's a control issue.CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20490271845470009932013-07-16T06:58:53.054-04:002013-07-16T06:58:53.054-04:00"Z doesn't seem a very brave or "man..."Z doesn't seem a very brave or "manly man," if I may say" you may, you may, you masculinist!<br /><br />Also, I note you are able to get into the head of both Z who "clearly used bad judgement," and M who had Skittles "for frame of mind."<br /><br />You are worse than useless; your continued ruminations here are grotesque.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47514946317076459452013-07-16T05:15:04.874-04:002013-07-16T05:15:04.874-04:00Guns, guns, guns, everyone needs a gun these days....Guns, guns, guns, everyone needs a gun these days. Whatever happened to good old fashioned fist fights? Are we to take the law to be that if we get into a fist fight we automatically have the right to kill someone who is kicking our ass? At what point am I only losing a fist fight before it becomes, "he's trying to kill me"? Does anyone who believes that he is losing a fight have the right to kill his opponent?<br /><br />It was the middle of the night as I headed toward the neighborhood bar where teenagers came to play pool, meet friends and have a couple of drinks. The old man who owned the bar and waited on customers was almost blind. His wife was nearly deaf. The little bar kept them alive.<br /><br />I saw two cops enter the bar through the back door as they noticed that the bar was filled with teenagers. One cop called the old man over to where he and his partner leaned on the end of the bar. I couldn't hear the conversation, but the old bartender went to the cash register, pulled out a twenty and handed it to the cop he spoke with. With a nod and a wave the cops left the bar. The transaction did not feel corrupt to me. Instead, I felt that the cops did not want to harm the senior couple, but also knew that it was a risk to allow them to continue to sell liquor, mostly beer, to minors. <br /><br />The bar was a hangout that kept us off the streets. We were less trouble for the neighborhood when we were in the bar than if we were bored wandering through the neighborhood looking for something exciting to get into. The neighborhood bar and the small bribe was a lesson in "live and let live."<br /><br />All the teenagers left the bar before midnight; the witching hour set by most of the parents. We'd split off in different directions toward each of our homes. Some of us walked a girlfriend home. If it was winter we wore high collars, scarfs, gloves and ear muffs. We looked suspicious, as if we were in disguise. <br /><br />After saying goodnight to each other we would be alone for the final blocks to our homes. We were intoxicated, it was late and we behaved suspiciously as we cut across yards, slipped through alleys and went behind houses. <br /><br />We were lucky not to come across some wannabe yahoo who thought it would make him a man to take one of us "suspects" down. I reserve the right to confront anyone who follows me. Suspicion of a person who is following me, is not permission for him to kill me, or so I once believed.gcwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07990785263482839943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63291412118778220782013-07-16T04:06:09.758-04:002013-07-16T04:06:09.758-04:00not debatable at all, really.not debatable at all, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54013836439433205712013-07-16T04:03:17.103-04:002013-07-16T04:03:17.103-04:00deadrat, Occam's Razor is not on your side.deadrat, Occam's Razor is not on your side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com