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
“If so how does that explain the mass auditory/visual experiences reported, the report of super-natural occurrences (i.e miracles) following an alleged auditory/visual hallucination?”
SoTB,
Who says the reportage of the “miracles” and observers was indeed accurate? This is why Gene emphasizes that science differs from faith in that it is built upon documented, observable phenomenon. I’ve took many LSD, mescaline and peyote during my long ago hippie years. I can assure you that the hallucinatios I experienced seemed shockingly real, yet weren’t. In the aftermath of my heart transplant, between the drugs and the lack of oxygenation I was in a psychotic state which I wrote about here: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/22/from-the-bottom-of-my-new-heart/
I can assure you that my perception of what was happening was skewed.
The use of psychedelics goes back perhaps tens of thousands of years. Besides that who is to say that Paul for instance, on the road to Damascus, didn’t undergo a psychotic episode that shook him to the core? “Faith” is perfectly fine for the faithful, but should never be confused with science.
New people are tasty. Then they get old and leathery like Gene and require vats of sauce.
“[Me] Really? I don’t remember regarding anything you said as little worth. If I was cursory or terse toward you I again apologize. Can you please point out what words they were so I can modify my future comments in a more positive way?”
SoTB,
Glad to be of service. See below:
“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”.”
The connotation of “unenlightened reader” coupled with the unjustified assumption that I was unaware of the problems with the KJV, put as a direct response to me, was condescending in tone. I’m sure it wasn’t done intentionally, but then the character on “Big Bang” also doesn’t do what he does intentionally. In any event there is a process of people getting used to each others quirks, despite your compliments to me I have many quirks of my own, that comes with familiarity. Part of the reason I’ve been here so long, besides our inestimable host, is that the culture here is far more receptive and far less unwelcoming of new people than is the norm on the Internet.
SoTB,
My first suggestion is to get a copy of The Bicameral Mind and read it rather than depending on Wikipedia for the cheat sheet version.
Mike and I have both worked with the mentally ill for many decades, and I am here to tell you that when someone “hears voices,” especially command hallucinations, the ‘commands’ are hard to resist. Of course, we have no way to vet the claims of various prophets, but I would wager some of them were crazy as a road lizard. I have always been suspicious of John the Baptist in that regard. Also, just like today, some who were very convincing in olden times were probably con men, similar to some of our modern cult leaders and televangelests. Convincing, but as phony as the proverbial three dollar bill. Which was which? Nobody knows, and since they are now all dead, we cannot give them an MMPI or Rorschach test.
@Julian_Jaynes_Scholars (explicit) – OK I’m now researching Julian Jaynes after so much discussion about him here. At first blush I see something that concerns me. Everyone here who says that they really enjoyed his works. Well when reading this paragraph at Wikipedia, was he suggesting that Moses and other Bronze Age bible writers who “heard voices” must have been experiencing some form of schizophreniform-like disorder as obviously God, angels, and devil DON’T actually exist? If so how does that explain the mass auditory/visual experiences reported, the report of super-natural occurrences (i.e miracles) following an alleged auditory/visual hallucination? Don’t attack or deride now. I’m just asking a question. Please just explain your position in a polite fashion.
Here is the quote:
“Jaynes wrote, “[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey.” Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of centuries beginning around 1200 BC[E]. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
Gene,
Thank you. Brought back some happy memories. Along with a bit of grief as I contemplate a powerful voice that is forever stilled.
SoTB,
Reconciling the historical Jesus to the modernity of the Damascus Conversion and beyond is a challenge best illuminated by one word, Christ.
I prefer Jesus and leave Christ to the Christians. 🙂
Gene & Mike,
I was attending a seminar at Esalen Institute back in 1973. I was visiting with some folks in the main lodge dining room one afternoon when Alan Watts came strolling through and joined in the conversation. He looked fit, but his face had deep lines. A few weeks later, I learned he had died of a heart attack. Sad, but glad I got to meet him.
He said one thing that has stuck with me. “There are no truly straight lines in nature. Straight lines are a human invention. The universe is a wonderfully wiggly place with no straight lines.”
@Gene H. – I was sincere…
@Blouise – Cool beans! OK I don’t agree with Maccoby (on first blush). I also side with other theologians who feel that any information about Ebionites is conjecture at best. I personally do not feel that JC would have any allegiance with them nor even the Essene’s as some have suggested. Both group’s belief systems were arguably mostly in direct opposition to what he taught in 1st c. CE.
My comments on the so-called Saint Helena are NOT complementary. I personally believe she was the impetus that influenced her son and Athanasius of Alexandria into introducing pagan rituals, customs, and artifacts of ancient Greece and Babylon into her son’s newly created 4th c. CE religion: The RCC. These quasi-pagan things still exist today across Organized Christianity. Many of the RCC/Protetant laity don’t see them as “pagan” as they just blindly accept their clergy’s teachings as true without challenge.
If by Paulinian you mean “followers of Saul of Taurus’ teachings” I think Helena and they would hit it off big time. Why? Because even Saul (or Paul) was not a follower of his own teachings. He followed Jesus’ teachings which came from his true Father YHWH. Hence any one following just him and not JC would be considered NOT a true Christian – hence pagan.
Blouise,
Part of the reason I comment here is the quality of the crew. In all the years since I first read Jaynes I never ran into anyone who either read him or was interested in his work. Just on this thread we have at least five. (Mike S)
————————————————————————————
Jaynes is a mind opener.
Another book that smacked me upside the head was People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil by M Scott Peck. It’s a little book chocked full of understanding.
@Mike Spindell – OK Mike I read the Wikipedia article about Hyam Maccoby. At first blush I tend to lean more toward John Gager, Oskar Skarsaune, and James Dunn’s criticism of his work. I would have to delve deeper into Maccoby’s works but, again at first blush, I don’t think he was terribly accurate in some of his assumptions about Jesus. Do you have any specific questions for me about my viewpoint of Maccoby’s work? If not that’s OK too. My ADD is acting up and my brain is like Grand Central Station right now. As a clinician I’m sure you know what that means.
SoTB,
Okay and good. I was afraid I had unintentionally insulted you so I’m glad I hadn’t. Missing references to Star Wars is a specialty with me in that I was never a fan.
Did you find the theology attributed to the Ebionites interesting? I spent an entire 6 weeks on them when I was doing my theology degree and then promptly forgot them until Mike mentioned Hyam Maccoby.
I’ve always wondered what would have happened to history had Constantine’s mother run into one of them instead of one of the Paulinian followers. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but fun.
sonofthunderboanerges,
And that should influence me why, exactly? You catering to my ego, even if the compliment was sincere, doesn’t make a bit of difference to you being factually and definitionally wrong.
OS,
Alan Watts is another guy who often gets the short shrift because people associate him with philosophy first and foremost. Even though he lacked formal training, his “Psychotherapy East and West” was brilliant.
OK Gene… blah blah blah. All I can say is “whatever”. I guess you missed the part where I compliment you?
@Blouise – “Was not attempting rancor when I suggested the Ebionites. At the worst I was piling on the homework. Knowledge of them is helpful in a discussion (nix the word debate) of this sort … but not at all necessary.”
FYI – when I mentioned the word “Rancor” I was not thinking of “bitterness”. I was referring to a mythological alien creature in the Star Wars movies that lived in Jaba the Hut’s trap-door dungeon and was used against his enemies (i.e. The Jedi). It was meant as tongue-in-cheek humor on my part but I think it may have been taking in the wrong light.
OK I researched the Ebionites. Do you want to ask me a question about them? If so please proceed…
Because people who point out when you’re factually and definitionally full of shit are such of bullies. Why the nerve of some people . . . you’d think they were interested in facts over speculation and wishful thinking. How dare people insist on accuracy and truthfulness instead of misrepresentations and distortions!
Mike, insert long story here.
I discovered a long lost cousin from our Scottish clan at one of the Highland Games I attend. He was very tall, over 6’5″ , very dark skinned and had long straight black hair he wore in braids. When he was a kid growing up in North Carolina, he asked his dad why, if they were supposed to be Scottish, how come they looked so much like Native Americans. He said his dad knocked him across the room and told him never to ask a question like that again. He said, “I had to wait for the son of a bitch to die before I could start doing some genealogical research.”
Turns out that a lot of the early Scottish settlers in NC intermarried with the native population. They had a lot in common. My cousin observed, “We both came from a strong tribal/clan culture with strong leaders, and their favorite two things were fighting and sex, not necessarily in that order.”
Anyway, my cousin who, like several people here, was a polymath. He was a talented craftsman and photographer, and became a psychologist. He immersed himself in the local Native cultures, became a Kituwah Dancer and gained recognition as a medicine man. Almost all his therapy clients were from local tribes, and he was highly respected. From a therapist point of view, he was trained as a Gestalt therapist, but integrated a lot of local cultural beliefs in his therapy. He was damn effective. And oh yes, he was very conversant with the works of both Joseph Campbell and Julian Jaynes as well as Alan Watts.
He died of complications from the treatment he received for throat cancer. He was about five years out from the cancer, but had a stroke as a result of blood vessel damage. He was proud to be a shaman. He would have agreed with you100%. He died far too young. I miss him.
@Mike Spindell – Before I attempt to answer your other assignments for me (and I mean that it the best tongue-in-cheek humor I hope you know – I deeply respect you Mike); let me address this posting sub-part first:
“In any event I’m not into debating this with you since I wouldn’t want to disparage your beliefs.”
[Me] OK fair enough…
“Suffice it to say that from my perspective you are somewhat less than a Torah scholar.”
[Me] If you mean by SCHOLAR: “A specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic: “a Hebrew scholar”. or a person who is highly educated…” I agree with you. However, I do view myself as “having the aptitude for study.”
“No doubt you feel the same about me.”
[Me] No sir. I am in AWE of you and your background. I bow to your intellectual acumen.
“Let’s call it an agreement to disagree.”
[Me] Well I don’t think that’s necessary as I share many of your beliefs. The ones we don’t agree on we aren’t really arguing on. I think we both just accept that we both are entitled to our belief systems, which is fair enough for me.
“I would like to point out though that at times your attitude dips into being condescending and can be annoying.”
[Me] If I’ve been doing that it’s not intentional. It’s difficult to convey emotions over the Internet and emoticons don’t seem to help. I know Wootsey thinks I’m a lot like the Jim Parson’s character on TBBT (Sheldon Cooper) who is very condescending and he means it. I may come off that way when my angst starts to show with other egotistical types here (The Fact-Rancor?). I think that angst is strategically baited by him and I refuse to play that game any more. I respect the intelligence of the individual in question. He is extremely smart and I have followed his posting everywhere. I just think he has Internet social skill gaps and has been very rude (at least to me) because I had the temerity to step (albeit inadvertently) on his turf. I like everyone here. Why? Because this forum is so unique in the level of IQ’s I’m used to dealing with like at YouTube.com under another alias. I apologize if I annoyed you, I admitted to everyone earlier I am not too well versed in social protocols and do tend to step on toes sometimes with my candid comments. I don’t mean to.
“This is a pity because you obviously have much to contribute.”
[Me] Thank you…
“You have to realize though that there are a lot of smart people here, many I consider more erudite than myself, so being condescending often brings on onslaughts of facts you hadn’t considered or entertained. This is why I find that respect for others is returned in kind.”
[Me] yes you are right. I don’t like Sheldon Cooper and I don’t want to appear to be like him. I play nice in this sandbox. But when the bullies come in I may get a little too defensive. Just like Christopher Langan said in his video up there somewhere:’He doesn’t tolerate bullies long…
“I made the points you disparaged as merely representing my opinions. They were cursory and terse, though they are informed by a lot of thought and study,, perhaps more than your own.”
[Me] Really? I don’t remember regarding anything you said as little worth. If I was cursory or terse toward you I again apologize. Can you please point out what words they were so I can modify my future comments in a more positive way?