We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
W=^..^
😀
“1) Give someone greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation and 2) Give someone spiritual knowledge or insight.”
None of which bears to the veracity of said knowledge. You beg the question you’re right in your belief that your knowledge is factual when time and again it has been shown that it isn’t. Your knowledge is simply your beliefs. You have yet to prove any of them factually correct.
“I also posit here that Hitler used Galton’s Eugenics and Darwin’s “…FAVORED RACES…” theory to support his attack on the Jews and other lessor-known religions and peoples.”
Again, immaterial, a false equivalence and an attempt at demonization.
“So your ‘to the man’ attack on me about lack of ‘tact’ is a typical, for you, a non sequitur comment, IMO of course.”
I’m pretty sure your opinions are worthless at this point since none of them appear to be backed by fact. You should also distinguish when a statement is to your statement and not yourself because parroting the English for ad hominem doens’t mean you understand the nature of the term. “By the way, asking a Jew if they can spell eugenics considering what was done to their people by the Nazis under the polemic of eugenics is the very height of tact. Good show. Can you spell sarcasm?” Goes directly to your statement. You as a man are not mentioned at all in that statement. If I’d had said you’re a tactless fucking idiot, that would have been to the man. Really . . . definitions are a most basic form of information. When your definitions are faulty, anything else you say is built on a foundation of sand.
@Gene H. – Oops I meant enlighten is a VERB not ADJECTIVE… my bad!
@Gene H. – I am obviously sloughing through your post piecemeal. As much as I love Mandy Patinkin (and that particular movie: The Princess Bride (1987)), I really don’t think it was applicable to my use of the adjective “Enlighten”. Of course it has two meanings: 1) Give someone greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation and 2) Give someone spiritual knowledge or insight.
Judging that that was a basic DICTIONARY definition I feel that my attempts to enlighten fall within either 1 or 2 or both. Of course I can not somehow “divine” someone’s religion over the Internet hence I did not know Mike was Jewish. But how is that relevant to my posting? I also posit here that Hitler used Galton’s Eugenics and Darwin’s “…FAVORED RACES…” theory to support his attack on the Jews and other lessor-known religions and peoples. So your “to the man” attack on me about lack of “tact” is a typical, for you, a non sequitur comment, IMO of course.
sonofthunderboanerges,
“We don’t need to discuss this by hijacking this thread again.”
Then perhaps you should quit bringing it up. You seem to have a faulty definition of the word “causation” too. As to the dictionary definition of the word belief, they also have one for the word fact. You should check that out some time. Like now:
belief \bə-ˈlēf\, n.,
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
fact \ˈfakt\, n.,
1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime c archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality
4a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
While we’re at it, let’s look at the word “conviction”.
conviction \kən-ˈvik-shən\
1: the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law
2a : the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth b : the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth
3a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced
Your inability to rationally, logically and empirically evaluate scientific evidence and choosing to state your beliefs in the form of fact does not make your beliefs a scientific fact. It just means you believe what you believe. You can’t prove any of it. Unless, of course, you are indeed sitting on some evidence that Darwin’s methodology was wrong or have proof that contradicts evolution and/or natural selection as correct interpretations of natural processes.
In re: Darwin and the title of his work – Back peddle much? That his cousin coined the term “eugenics” is immaterial. Galton also recognized the topic as an area of study, not an applied science and that the idea had limitations. Your original statement is still a false equivalence. An attempt to demonize Darwin by association. In short, not only an erroneous belief, but propaganda as well.
And, yes, I’m quite familiar with Einstein’s letter to FDR. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, not only do I find science interesting, but the history of science as well. As to your assertion of Einstein working on the Manhattan Project? The fact of the matter is that in July of 1940, U.S. Army Intelligence determined Einstein was a security risk and denied him clearance to work on the project. In fact, those working on the project were forbidden from consulting Einstein on the project.
Is there anything else you’d care to be proven wrong about? Or would you really like to return to the proper subject of this thread now? Either way is fine with me.
“We US taxpayers allow the hiring of psychopaths in our intelligence community to protect our national security. With the exception of Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy (et al) we need them – so to speak.”~sonofthunderboanerges(on psychopaths)
—————————-
sonofthunderboanerges,
No, we don’t.
We really don’t.
And they *know* it or there would be a National ‘Psychpath’ club, tax breaks and certificates and kudos and stuff…. in the forces a battalion w/medals and etc.
It may be but it is not ‘allowed’ or sanctioned by American taxpayers any more than corporate Psychopaths are allowed and sanctioned by anyone.
This is not a subtle distinction….the behavior that defines ‘psychopaths’ is illegal.
@Gene H. – You appear to have a reading comprehension deficit as well as a basic lack of understanding for basic dictionary definitions. Case in point: “However, he used faulty empirical data to arrive there IMO.” You took this sentence of mine TOTALLY out of context. I was not necessarily referring to Darwin’s work product. I was referring to his “Protestant minister training” as I thought the sense stress was quite apparent.
I feel that, with the help of Organized Christianity (Fundamentalism), he came to false conclusions (as do you) about the META – PHYSICAL* SUPER – NATURAL* entity known as YAHWEH and His Messianic son Yeshua, incorrectly placing contributory-blame on Him/them for his 5-year old daughter’s death by Tuberculosis. IMO this arguably lead to his full break with Christendom and his ostensible “deal with the devil” – namely The Linnaeus Society who bankrolled his and his cousin’s Galt’s work. Am I implying an almost 2 century hidden-agenda-conspiracy? Hell yeah!
*those words have ACTUAL dictionary meanings (as does the word “belief”) contrary to what you frequently copy and paste.
Also I would think you’d look more intelligent if you cease from the arguably puerile ad hominem approach to debating with me. It doesn’t become you or your view-points well.
@Gene H. – For the record I was NOT blaming Darwin for Eugenics. I was blaming the Linnaeus Society of London (which still exists today). And are you suggesting that Albert Einstein played no active role in the once top-secret Manhattan Project? Seriously? I suppose you never heard of the Einstein letters to (POTUS) F.D.R. from 1939 onward? And that he was also 1 of the 200,000 employees of the once top-secret project? Of course he took a different standing after 1950 but he clearly worked WITH Fermi, Feynman, Openheimer, Urey (et al) in the early years.
@Woosty’s still a Cat – Oops I meant WHO the hell am I? And on that note what does BOANERGES mean? Hebrew: bene reghesh or “sons of thunder”. A certain 1 c. C.E. Jewish Messianic carpenter used this arguably tongue-in-cheek phrase to refer to two hot-head or vociferous preachers or orators who were “trying” to following his lead – namely James and John at Mark 3:17. Yes I am a hot-head and quite vociferous (or quite noisy) – you didn’t notice? 🙂 Hence the moniker fits – no?
@Gene H. – I guess it’s no coincidence that Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton – the inventor of Eugenics, was also under the employ of the Linnaeus Society of London? I mean come on: “…FAVOURED RACES…”? Do you need glasses to see the elephant standing in the kitchen? (In case “some” savants have trouble with sardonic humor that contained some of it). BTW “belief” has a generic dictionary definition. You should check one of those books out some day… We don’t need to discuss this by hijacking this thread again. However, I’ll try and slough through you loggeria-style-essay AGAIN! I know you have something important to say! I just wish the NSA/CSS would let me download their KODA text-similarity measure software… 🙂
@Mike Spindell – Of course I had no idea what your religion was. Suffice it to say I still see no inconsistencies that can’t be explained by environmental and personal “self-admitted” cognitive shortcomings of Moses. Being that I am not aware of what inconsistencies you refer to I wont attempt to guess at them. Definition INCONSISTENT: Adjective – “Not staying the same throughout; having self-contradictory elements.” I just don’t agree with that assertion about Moses’ work.
@Woosty’s still a Cat – I believe that the scriptural record is clear that He is not human and not everywhere and is in a specific location He calls the MOST HOLY within a invisible realm in outer space He calls HEAVEN. Now Organized Religion has arguably destroyed the credibility of that divine word and non-believers, and some believers, totally misunderstand it’s true meaning. And yes I could point you to probable or theoretical location on a interstellar map based on certain scriptural clues/hints I’ve read, but it would just be my wholly esoteric opinion, hence probably not at all valid; as you the hell am I… right? 🙂
@Malisha – For the record I was willing to drop this subject I started and stick to GZ. Still am. However, I do like intellectual debate though. I just wish we had a forum to go essay-style loggeria. I know three of us are EXPERTS at loggeria. Sorry… Your OK and I’m OK (I hope)… 🙂
SoTB & Malisha,
Your comments deserve longer answers than I’m able to supply on my Kindle. I’ m still on the road so I’ll answer when I get back home.
I’m a Jew too but I will have to confess that, in spite of a non-Jew lawyer economist friend of mine (and a sadly deceased Jesuit-trained historian therapist friend of mine too) both believing that my ancestry (or lineage or something) should give me all kinds of intellectual enhancements, I have no idea what ANYBODY is talking about any more.
That is, I thought I had pretty good control of my comprehension of the ten-minute segment in Sanford on 2/26/2012 and even for that I had to study pretty intensely at first, but then it got hard for me and I took short cuts like looking up Darwin on Google. (BTW “Darwin on Google” and “Coons to Punks” both sound like good short story titles to me.)
What occurred to me back in, oh, maybe 1988 (when I thought it was important to do some religion-related stuff so my kid could have the benefit of the exposure), was that the origins of the universe [sic] might or might not imply deliberate creation (a phrase I understand much better than “intelligent design”) but even if they did, that left open the questions of what the creator(s) was and, more, what its existence implied or, especially, demanded from ME (and my kid). So I reached:
Is there god?
What is (are) god?
Why would anybody presume god is all-knowing, all-powerful and/or all-good?
Even if god were all-knowing, all-powerful and/or all-good, why would it want ME (who is none of the above) to “worship”?
How does god WANT, anyway?
And finally, I came down to:
Whatever god may or may not be, it is NOT a “good mother.”
Which led me to: “Damn! I really wish god both WERE and WERE a good mother!”
Which led to my putting all these thoughts away because at the time I was busy and they were giving me a headache.
Don’t worry, I’m much better now. Some scientist invented aspirin.
Good luck with that Woosty ! Gotta turn off now. Big Tstorms coming thru.
rafflaw1, April 15, 2012 at 12:18 am
———————————————-
🙂
I’ll just keep praying…
Woosty,
I am sure Google maps can find him/her!
sonofthunderboanerges1,
what’s a ‘boanerges1’… ?
…sounds a tad earthy, like a specific spatial location in the Universe within our galaxy …….
sonofthunderboanerges1, April 14, 2012 at 10:03 pm
@Woosty’s still a Cat – My salient point was He is NONE of them. BTW IMO He has a specific spatial location in the Universe within our galaxy and is not “everywhere” as Christendom falsely has taught the masses. PROOF? Proof is like stinkin’ badges:
———————————————————
My salient point is S/He is ALL of them, and more.
you say,
“He has a specific spatial location in the Universe within our galaxy …”
really? got co-ordinates? I would dearly love to know where to bring my many offerrings….
sonofthunderboanerges,
“’On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’
Can you spell Eugenics?”
Not only can I spell eugenics, I know what it means.
Eugenics is an applied science/social movement that advocates the genetic manipulation of the composition of populations, usually human, to “improve” them through intervention. It’s a political polemic misusing the work of Darwin to justify all manner of horrific medical and social mistreatment of “other” people just as social Darwinism misues the work of Darwin to justify all manner of social and economic cruelty against “other” people. It is not evolution. It is not the work proper of Darwin which described a natural process, but it does not advocate human intervention into the process. Your statement is a false equivalence. If you want to slander others works for the evils done under the guise of eugenics, you’d have a better case slandering Mendel or the practice of animal husbandry and even then you wouldn’t have a case for your false equivalence. Blaming Darwin for the abuses done under the name of eugenics is like blaming Einstein for the work of Oppenheimer. Darwin, like Einstein, had a theory. He made a tool for understanding and explaining a natural process. Like any tool, it can be abused by other men with agendas all their own – something that seems to set you off in dealing with a book of fairy tales, but doesn’t seem to bother you at all when it comes to science and scientists. I love the smell of false equivalences mixed with hypocrisy. It smells . . . just like bullshit.
Speaking of bullshit . . .
“However, he used faulty empirical data to arrive there IMO.”
It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is more evidence in the form of valid empirical data proving that Darwin was right about natural selection and evolution than a reasonable man would argue against at this point. Whereas all those who would disprove or falsify evolution and/or natural selection have exactly zero proof to back their assertions other than their beliefs. You can have your opinion and express it all you like, but without proof of your assertions, it remains opinion founded in belief, not an assertion of fact. If you have evidence Darwin’s methodology was flawed, produce it. Otherwise, be content that people who actually understand the nature and practice of science and the scientific method are going to dismiss your opinion and rightfully so as a form of wishful thinking.
You really should not use words you don’t properly understand, but then again, when you operate off of beliefs instead of empirical evidence, neither reasonableness nor proper understanding are required. Just faith.
By the way, asking a Jew if they can spell eugenics considering what was done to their people by the Nazis under the polemic of eugenics is the very height of tact. Good show. Can you spell sarcasm?
But by all means, please, do continue to “enlighten” us. That word. “Enlighten”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
That seems to be a recurring theme within your posts.
@Mike Spindell – “Darwins’ Theory has always made sense to me to the point I accept it as conceptually true.”
I personally think it’s TRUE title sums up what it was really all about:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Can you spell Eugenics?
“However, that being said I don’t think it negates the possibility of a creative force informing the Universe.”
I think Darwin was an evolved agnostic. He started off as a Protestant minister in training. However, he used faulty empirical data to arrive there IMO. The death of his daughter Anne was the fault of the unfortunate happenstance of mycobacterium not his chosen deity.
“Nevertheless Genesis has always bugged me due to its internal inconsistencies.”
Sorry… I just don’t think those were “inconsistencies”. More like reader misunderstandings based on an outdated Old English version of a 17th century Protestant translation from a politically corrupt British King (from the house of Stuart).
“It can only be seen as allegory, a form which our ancestor’s understood far better than we do. The imprimatur of making allegory into history was laid down to keep the masses in their places, by misinterpreting the message in the allegory.”
To the unenlightened reader I would agree it would appear that way. However, if it weren’t for a certain 17th century CE DETOUR (i.e. KJV) and Roman Catholic misdirections (i.e. Douay Version) I think readers would not see Moses divinely inspired work as simply an “allegory”. Organized religion has a lot to account for over 1,600 years of confusing the masses with their own hidden agenda versions of God’s word; twisting our true history of our origins into easily ridiculed quasi-fairy tales. Atheists invariably love pointing out the 6,000 year old Earth fairy-tale invented by their timeless misunderstanding of Moses’ words.
SoTB,
I’m Jewish and also have a fair understanding of history. Why would you think I’d rely on the King James Bible, or indeed any Christian interpretation of the Torah? I’ve read Genesis and I’ve discussed it in Shul. To me it is internally inconsistent and obviously an allegory. As for trying to pin eugenics on Darwin I think you’re off base. Your analogy would blame Jesus for let’s say the Inquisition and that would be illogical. As Gene mentioned Jews have a shall we say morbid interest in the eugenics movement and some of the evil it’s done.
@Woosty’s still a Cat – My salient point was He is NONE of them. BTW IMO He has a specific spatial location in the Universe within our galaxy and is not “everywhere” as Christendom falsely has taught the masses. PROOF? Proof is like stinkin’ badges: