“Weiner reports that the prosecution is saying Zimmerman and his wife “may have committed contempt of court by lying,” arguing that Zimmerman “misrepresented, misled and deceived the court” during a bond hearing regarding his U.S. passport and his family’s financial situation.”

via http://tinfoilandtea.tumblr.com/post/24209713192/stfuconservatives-nefariousnewt

Welp, looks like Zimmerman’s not so good at telling the truth after all.

And then you top it off claiming your racism is OK as long as you can claim it’s true.

Keep digging that hole! ;)

The fact that you don’t get that it’s neither of those things that’s it, still, actually adds dumb to the “racist asshole.”

The last sentence is an example of the kind of rip-roaring rhetoric we can expect from the half-educated Twitter Generation. Also, outside of th e DNC HQ and CNN, you don’t get to win every argument simply by invoking “racist” or “racism” or “clueless racist jackass” like some kind of incantation. The questions surrounding this case are not if something is racist or not, but rather if some position or another is true.

The fact that you don’t get that it’s neither of those things that’s it, still, actually adds dumb to the “racist asshole.”

Leonard: Oh look, you moved the goalposts. How surprising!

That a teapot is orbiting the sun in an eccentric orbit is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

That children of people with power and status get breaks is as old as human society and not extraordinary at all.

The opposite of that is in fact an extraordinary claim, which you have not provided any extraordinary evidence for.

The fact that I can get you to argue against it, that you will argue like an idiot against an obvious generalization that hurts your defense for Zimmerman, yet you’ll paragraphs later fight for a generalization that you think hurts Martin (even though it doesn’t): priceless.

“(e) Still refusing to think for yourself.”

Ah, so that’s what you think disagreeing with your conclusions means. It must be a terrible burden being so much smarter than everyone else.

“This is highly relevant, because if they had not met, nothing could have happened.”

So if we believe that, Zimmerman is at least if not more culpable, since he initiated the following and continued it even after being advised that he didn’t need to anymore.

“(f) Yes, I am sticking with that. No, it is not insane. There is a reason: what Martin chose to say about himself and how he chose to portray himself when nobody was watching except his friends, is an honest representation of who he wanted to be.”

Ah, so you’re confusing bravado with accuracy.

“For example, in my opinion, in the undercover cop’s sworn statement that he clearly identified himself to Zimmerman. Well, maybe he did. But maybe he didn’t. Do cops ever swear to stuff on police reports that is untrue? You seem to believe not. ”

I’m only saying I believe it about Zimmerman. You can make the fallacious assumption that that means I believe every cop ever, but that doesn’t make that true. It just makes you an asshole.

Do people who shoot unarmed teenagers ever lie about having a reason to? You seem to believe not. See? I can do it too!

“I do place trust in the idea that what a person places on twitter or youtube is what he or she wanted to put there.”

And obviously 100% accurate, and never exaggerated or even goofy.

But like I said, fighting tooth and nail against one generalization and then for another right here. Now that’s entertainment.

Deoxy: Oh, you’re free to keep essentially arguing with yourself about the only options I’m “allowed” to mean and the stupidity of using “lynching” in regard to this case. You’re also free to look like a clueless racist jackass while doing so.

Deoxy: people absolutely can, will, and do complain when people compare anything to the Holocaust, even when the thing in question is a brutal mass killing such as the Armenian genocide by the Turks.

I was referring to using the word “holocaust” (not capitalized), which happens with some frequency, not direct comparisons to the Holocaust.

But even your counter (the ADL) is weak – that’s their bloody job, eh?

Words evolve, take on a generalized meaning. That’s how language works – take an idea which requires a lot of explaining, and use a word to represent that whole explanation. Make it general, so that it applies in a lot of places.

Deliberately silly example: thermos. “Thermos” was a company that made “insulated bottles”. They became so dominant that people now just call an “insulated bottle” a “thermos”.

Since “lynch mobs” and “lynching” existed by name BEFORE it became popular in a certain place and time to apply them exclusively to black males, and especially since we are generations removed from that place and time, getting in a huff about it is, well… racist, most likely, though in a much softer form, at least, than we usually use that term for.

Or, in fairly bald appeal to authority, let me point you to wikpedia:

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

It quotes the legal definition of lynching, a felony in every state in the US, and it doesn’t mention race at all, except in the parts dealing with history of the US – but NOT so much in history in other places.

In short, “lynch” has been a term in general use for other things besides Jim Crow era behaviour both before AND after said behaviour. It’s a useful term to describe a very specific form of behaviour, and race is only one of several possible motivations for said behaviour.

Example: “Palestinian lynch mobs have murdered Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel.”

So yeah, I think an apology for getting on your high horse about that term is in order.

(Just for a fun comparison, I quote everyone’s favorite poster on this thread: “Go fuck yourself, word police.” Hard to argue with logic like that!)

“No, you’re espousing a principle, and our system is a precedent-based system. ”

Fuck you, telling me what I’m saying. I’m talking about Zimmerman, even if you want to believe I’m talking about every situation ever.

In that case, you are specifically saying we should take the law, which is great and fine in many other situations, and NOT APPLY IT to Zimmerman.

Those are you choices. Either there is a legal principle, which can be applied in all relevant cases, or you are advocating going outside the law. Pick one.

Of course, ethically, which I find more important than law, there’s no going outside of ethical positions, by definition. You ARE advocating an ethical position – to treat Zimmerman as you are advocating is to advocate treating any other person in his position the same way.

Now, “in his position” can include (in terms of ethics) all kinds of things not included in our legal system, such as skin color (for one VERY loaded example). I asked about that earlier, and you haven’t responded…

Do you know what word-policing is?

Yes, though I suspect you don’t, since you’re DOING IT AGAIN RIGHT HERE.

Seriously, man, I’ve made long, careful, deliberate, self-consistent, and patient responses, and the best you can manage is “Fuck you”?

I’m not being deliberately obtuse. In fact, I’ve gone to great lengths to carefully explain my reasoning on a great many points.

And so, to what is likely (based entirely on your earlier responses to others on this thread) your great delight, I am no longer going to respond to you.

You “win” – you can continue to shout your illogical, self-inconsistent, and tyrannical (in outcome if implemented) views, and I will no longer try to help you see your illogic or inconsistency.

Good luck in life. If you apply the same level of thoughtfulness and manners anywhere else in your life, you’ll need it.

(e) Still refusing to think for yourself. We agree that Martin was under no obligation to do anything. The question is what he did, and how he and Zimmerman happened to meet where they did. This is highly relevant, because if they had not met, nothing could have happened. You are sticking your head in the sand. A perfect example of Haidt’s claim: you are displaying “motivated ignorance”.

(f) Yes, I am sticking with that. No, it is not insane. There is a reason: what Martin chose to say about himself and how he chose to portray himself when nobody was watching except his friends, is an honest representation of who he wanted to be. What shows up in police records is a very refracted view of a person. They may contain gross untruths. For example, in my opinion, in the undercover cop’s sworn statement that he clearly identified himself to Zimmerman. Well, maybe he did. But maybe he didn’t. Do cops ever swear to stuff on police reports that is untrue? You seem to believe not.

What this gets back to is personal judgment. You seem to place great trust in the honesty of police — a bit odd around these parts, but certainly a respectable opinion. Whereas I do not. I do place trust in the idea that what a person places on twitter or youtube is what he or she wanted to put there.

(g) Again, you don’t understand what a generalization is.

@Some Questions: My argument was not that Simpson’s paradox is highly relevant to race in particular. It’s relevant to any attempt to make strong claims based on statistics, especially if one confounding variable (race, sex, poverty, you name it) is broken out but others such are ignored. I frequently see such arguments, and IIRC this thread contained a few. I could have been thinking of another thread I suppose. Most likely the discussion of Julian Sanchez’s article.

I am aware that the results of IQ is consistently lower in blacks (for whatever reason, but it’s worth noting that bias in the tests themselves does not explain the gap) and that it’s also correlated with crime and poverty rates, more strongly than crime and poverty correlate with each other. However, it’s not clear which way the causality runs. Lower IQ leads to poverty, but poverty leads to lower IQ. A group with a higher crime rate is going to make themselves poorer. John Lott isn’t wholly wrong, but IIRC he makes stronger claims than statistics can really justify.

The reason I didn’t discuss root causes is that regardless of why, blacks are more likely to be murderers than whites, but the chance of any given one being so is vanishingly small for both groups. Hence, it’s better to deal with much better predictors, such as the specific cirumstances I encounter one in.

Is it really, though? Prior to Zimmerman’s arrest there were certainly a loud group of people who were agitating for extrajudicial direct action against him. You had people like Spike Lee encouraging people to terrorize Zimmerman at what was thought to be his home address. You had folks like the New Black Panther Party offering money for the extrajudicial kidnapping or killing of Zimmerman. It certainly seems appropriate to call those people a lynch mob.

It’s not appropriate to limit the word to only white-on-black racially motivated extrajudicial killing. This is especially so in light of the fact that the word itself comes from the name of the man who first started lynching people n this country – a white justice of the peace having white Tories killed during the American Revolution. We’re going to run out of words if we have to use a different one for each nasty event in history regardless of what characteristics they share.

UNION CITY, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary issued a public reprimand against an Obion County judge for ordering the release of his son after an arrest for driving under the influence.

The court that investigates complaints against Tennessee judges posted the reprimand on Monday against General Sessions Court Judge Jimmy C. Smith.

According to the reprimand obtained by the Union City Daily Messenger (http://bit.ly/IkwOMY ), Smith admitted that he had set the condition for release of his son, James Cutler Smith, who was arrested in October 2011 and later pleaded guilty to a violation of the implied consent law.

The court found this was a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which says a judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be questioned.

…

I’ll let you find several hundred other examples of judges’ sons getting special treatment in less than a fucking second with a Google search term sequence even a child should be able to put together themselves. Since you seem to need evidence that judges have ever pulled strings for their children ever in history or something.

(e) Sounds more like something you really want to believe, if only because you think it makes Martin look bad. It’s both conjecture and irrelevant, because Martin was under no obligation to run straight home.

(f) So you’re sticking with your story that Zimmerman’s arrest for a violent crime holds less weight than posts on Twitter and Youtube that aren’t even crimes.

That is insane.

(g) It’s still a generalization, and unless you can prove it applies to the specific person in the specific case we’re talking about, useless. And dishonest in light of the fact that whoever threw the first punch may have been justified and legally right to do so. Don’t forget 776.012 up there in 130 (the comment number now, provided nothing is in mod queue).

More Questions: you know, at least the other people pretending racism doesn’t exist in this thread aren’t obvious about it. But, oh, wait:

#141 | Radley Balko | April 16th, 2012 at 8:06 pm

Though this doesn’t mean Trayvon wouldn’t have been shot or ended up in jail at some point judging by his No Limit N****A lifestyle.

And with one sentence, you undermine everything else you’ve written by revealing yourself to be a racist asshole.

Nice work.

…

Being a racist asshole around here is a bit of a habit for you.

Also, in re: acting like your favorite rock star. If your favorite rock star was laying down funky bass lines, but wasn’t Kim Deal’s sister, then I absolutely guarantee he was having sex with underage groupies. It’s not even conceivable that be wasn’t. Bass players pull all the tail, this is well known. Girls come in for the lead singer, get disappointed when he picks their hot friend, and then get it on with the bassist. Do they check ID before they let hot chicks in the limo? Naw. So if I were to bring up your favorite bass player, and how you had occasionally cracked your friends up by preening like him (this is what facebook is, dudes), in an underage rape case against you, would that seem reasonable or fair? Would it seem like a bunch of bullsh&t? Oh, wait, it would seem like a bunch of bullsh$t.

For the rest of you positing various sea-monkey experiments free of modern racism, I always wonder, when was the date when racism was no longer a significant problem in US society? Because we all know it was before, what with the lynchings, and the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, and the not voting, and so on. I figure you guys know that. When was the magic moment. 1986? When?

So this is where you put up or shut up. Give me a source for the idea that judge’s sons abuse the American justice system. And I don’t just want bending a rule in one incident here or there. I am talking about anything of the sort of undisputed badness equal to what Balko reports here all the time. (Puppycide as a de facto routine police tactic; using SWAT teams for minor warrants; routine warrant service in the middle of the night; forensic “expertise” abuse; cops getting away with crimes of various sorts.) Because, you know, letting a man get away with murder if he some distant connection, as you are implying, is a really bad thing. You’d think such abuse might get out. Well, I’d think that, anyway.

(e) I am not asking you to believe me or wagist about whether Martin must have doubled back. I am asking you to use your own brain to determine the truth of it, based on the known facts about the case — when 911 calls happened, where people were, etc. This data is summarized best at wagist, IMO, but you can re-derive it yourself if you don’t trust them. That is why I point you to wagist or NYT. For the data. Where the SUV was. Where the shooting was. Etc. Of course the NYT didn’t mention Martin doubling back. Why would they? It’s an inference that is not obvious unless you use at least one milliamp of brainpower. But more importantly, it interferes with the narrative.

(f) Of course it is “fair” (and relevant) to bring up Zimmerman’s arrest record. Duh. Do I really have to say that? If you want my opinion, both of the incidents are basically bullshit. (The plainclothes cop in the one incident probably did the exact kind of shit Balko documents all the time here. In the other incident, it was he said/she said as to whether he initiated it.) Still, they do raise my priors on whether or not Zimmerman might have somehow initiated a fight. The thing is, knowing Martin’s personal history raises my priors on him a lot more. And also, knowing Zimmerman’s other personal history (which I forgot to mention before), tends to lower my priors on him. I assume you know about this stuff, but discount it.

(g) You obviously don’t understand what a generalization is. A generalization does indeed apply to every member of the relevant group, in the absence of better, individuated knowledge. You don’t need to prove it applies to an individual; it applies until you prove it doesn’t. Of course, accurate stereotypes about people are not typically very strong. Young men commit most crime; but even so almost all young men are not criminals. But the point here is we have strong a posteriori knowledge of criminality: someone struck first, either Zimmerman or Martin.

I possibly may have also used sarcasm in a willful manner.

BamBam, I would submit that you’re an idiot, and you’re mad that you can’t come up with a better response.

Christoper Swing @ 106:
He’s not in prison and we’re not putting him there. He’s going to have a trial. That’s not exactly a terrible thing.

It’s very obvious to me, and I’m sure many others here, that Christopher Swing is a troll. The sheer amount of contradictory and illogically connected statements proves this quite readily.

Fuck you, telling me what I’m saying. I’m talking about Zimmerman, even if you want to believe I’m talking about every situation ever.

When did I tell someone NOT to use the words confrontation/innocent/murder? Because those are not examples of that. Do you know what word-policing is? Are you in some way completely fucking mentally deficient?

Based on that alone you might just be too stupid to have any sort of discussion with. The rest of your rant just confirms it.

Lynch mob is absolutely the wrong phrase to use with this case.

There is an unproven claim that someone not of a favored race murdered someone of a favored race, and there’s a large group of people publicly and proudly (with their own names attached) calling for his death by vigaliante/mob action, facts be d—ed.

How is that not a lynch mob? How is that not a lynching (if they do it)?

Historically, yes, that was done by white southerners to black males; how many decades must pass before we can use the term for something very similar? Heck, people don’t often complain when holocaust is used on things that are at least in a similar vein, these days, and that was worse, and the derived uses seldom even register on the same scale… and it was MORE RECENT, even.

Deoxy: “Simply throwing everyone into court (at the horrendous costs mentioned multiple times above) for anything that they can’t absolutely prove they DIDN’T do is stark raving insane. Also, arguably, EVIL.”

Good thing I’m only talking about Zimmerman then, isn’t it?

No, you’re espousing a principle, and our system is a precedent-based system. If that’s the principle that we use, at least thousands would go through this, based on who gets coverage in the media (and that’s the best way to interpret it).

“Morally, ethically, and legally, there simply isn’t the evidence to prove murder. As such, putting him on trial for it is MALICIOUS and WRONG.”

You’ve seen all the evidence, even that not available to the public, then? Why do you have the same access as the prosecutor?

Ah, that’s right. You haven’t, and you don’t. So you can’t know it’s malicious and wrong.

Bloody crap – I’ve carefully qualified my statements more than ANYONE on this bloody blog! WHAT IS ENOUGH FOR YOU?!?

“based on publicly available info” – I’ve said that NUMEROUS times.

I’ve been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you are arguing in good faith, but I’m just about to conclude that you are a simply closed-minded racist who cares nothing for actual facts.

If this case were exactly identical except the reversal of races (Martin were hispanic, Zimmerman were black), I would be arguing exactly the same points I’m making now. Would you?

I didn’t say a word could only have a specific definition for this discussion. I haven’t word-policed anyone.

Here are some of your quotes from this very thread:

And just how the fuck did Zimmerman happen to come to be out of his vehicle, and why was Martin even aware of Zimmerman’s presence to begin with?

Zimmerman initiated a confrontation when he followed Martin, continued to follow him when told not to by police, and got out of his vehicle to confront Martin about his presence there.

Word-policing the sue of “confrontation”

The SYG law in Florida might get him off for killing Martin, but it doesn’t make him innocent. Not even judged “not guilty” makes someone innocent.

In the end, Zimmerman still murdered Martin.

Word-policing “innocent”.

“We don’t know that.”

We absolutely know he murdered Martin. You’re just splitting hairs at this point. You’re also presuming that it matters more that it was legal than if it was right.

So if we should just shut up about things that are legal but not right, why the hell are you even hanging around this site? Because there’s plenty of things covered here that are legal that we get upset about because they’re not right.

Word-policing “murder”.

I could go on.

““Someone following you” != “legitimate fear for your life””

Cool. So I could follow your mom walking alone down the street in the middle of the night, and you wouldn’t think there would be any concern there? How about if I follow her in a vehicle first, then stop and get out and continue to follow her on foot when she tries to avoid me?

Context means a lot, doesn’t it?

Why yes, yes it does… and that context STILL doesn’t make it OK for “my mom” to attack you. It STILL boils down to who actually physically attacked whom. Just like I (and so many others on here) keep trying to tell you.

There’s no way to know beyond a reasonable doubt, so there’s no reason to bother with a trial, as it can only end in acquittal. (Again, “unless there’s some serious non-public evidence”. Sigh – can we PLEASE just start assuming that qualifier?!?!?)

“The problem here is that it, again, boils down to who started the fight.”

Good thing we’re going to have a court trial to get to the bottom of it, instead of people arguing on blogs.

And again, unless they have some kind of other evidence (which looks VERY unlikely, unless they were LYING ON THE STAND in the bail hearing), NO, it ISN’T a good thing, because there is no moral or ethical way to return anything but “not guilty” (which, as you have helpfully pointed out, does not mean “innocent”).

It is a WASTE of taxpayer money, the time of everyone involved, and a LOT of a private citizen’s money… a private citizen that we have no chance of actually convicting (Again, “unless there’s some serious non-public evidence”. Sigh – can we PLEASE just start assuming that qualifier?!?!?).

To put the PRINCIPLE in a bit clearer relief, let’s say you defend yourself using lethal force. There’s no moral or ethical way to PROVE you murdered the other guy (as there’s a plausible self-defense claim), but hey, you killed him, and you admit you killed him, so hey, off to trial for you, buddy!

Seriously, is that the standard you want to live under? Guilty until proven innocent?!? No matter how little evidence there is against you?

People “like us” aren’t trying to get anyone lynched. Settle the fuck down. Zimmerman’s been arrested, a meaningful investigation has ensued, and hey, a prosecutor decided to file charges. There’s going to be a trial.

By all accounts, and by the results of this second “meaningful” investigation (unless they were lying on the stand in the bail hearing), it would appear that the first investigation was just as meaningful, and that the result was actually more accurate: “We can’t possibly convict this guy, so let’s NOT CHARGE HIM ANYWAY.”

(Again, “unless there’s some serious non-public evidence”. Sigh – can we PLEASE just start assuming that qualifier?!?!?)

Not charging doesn’t mean they didn’t do a meaningful investigation or that they are just “ignoring” it. It just means they results of the investigation (even a “meaningful” one) were not sufficient for charges.

Just for the record, what would it take for you to be satisfied that no trial was necessary? A certain number of witnesses? Video? A written, notarized statement from the deceased?

The only good thing I can think of about this trial is that, while there is always the chance of the jury returning a stupid or unjust verdict, at least afterwards (assuming they don’t), he’ll be able to shield himself with the double-jeopardy clause.

(Again, “unless there’s some serious non-public evidence”. Sigh – can we PLEASE just start assuming that qualifier?!?!?)

Have I sufficiently qualified all of that? I can paste that in a few more places, if that would help you.