Adventist Leaders Speak Out About the Killing of Trayvon Martin
by AT News Team
Over the past ten days a number of Seventh-day Adventist pastors and administrators have made public statements of concern about the shooting death of a 17-year-old African American young man in a suburb of Orlando, Florida. The tragic death of Trayvon Martin has opened a national debate about race and violence, and Adventist voices have been included, perhaps somewhat late.
Sabbath, March 17, “a predominantly African-American Seventh-day Adventist congregation” in the Orlando area held a forum on race issues, according to the CNN Belief Blog, and Pastor James Coffin was on the panel. A man in the audience asked why the white leadership of the denomination had not yet spoken to the events.
Coffin “admitted the man was right” and “later wrote … an impassioned e-mail … acknowledging his guilt for his inaction,” according to CNN. “African-Americans shouldn’t be waging this battle on their own,” Coffin is quoted. “While it certainly has racial overtones and undertones, it’s a problem that’s bigger than just racism.” It is such a fundamental issue Coffin said that people outside the African-American community “need to get involved … for our own well-being.”
“Hundreds of students, community leaders and elected officials marched along Grandville Avenue in Grand Rapids,” Michigan, the same day. Then joined “a community gathering … at La Paz Seventh-day Adventist Church,” reported local television news. The event celebrated the legacy of Cesar Chavez, the activist that organized the farm workers union. There are many migrant farm workers that work in Michigan.
By Monday, March 26, the denomination’s top leadership was speaking out on the issue. “We join with others in deep concern of the senseless, violent acts,” said Pastor Dan Jackson, president of the North American Division. “Trayvon Martin [was like] many of our youth, many of our own children. We join in mourning with his family and friends and pray for justice.”
The majority of Adventists in North America under 18 years of age are people of color. “For that simple reason alone, we must deal with this issue,” said Monte Sahlin, research director for the Ohio Conference and a researcher affiliated with the Bradford-Cleveland-Brooks Leadership Center at Oakwood University. “Young people like Trayvon Martin are the future of the Adventist faith.”
Isn't this about a deeper issue? Our church is organized by races. There are African-American, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, etc. This serves to divide rather than to bring congregations united for Christ. Now I see churches divided by races which results in accusations of racism and power struggles. I see a church leadership that does not address the problem for fear of being labeled racist. When there is a church that includes all races, people worship together, go to school together, socialize together. The fact that a group feels it must demand the church leadership make a statement, is destructive. Is this what will lead people to Christ and heaven? Will heaven be divided by races?
Given that “our church is organized by races,” what,
in your opinion, would be the appropriate response
for any group of SDAs who feel Church leadership
should be vocal on an issue? Is it your opinion that
every time a group calls on leadership to be …
well, … leaders, that it is destructive? Or is your concern
limited to groups that share an ethnic commonality?
My local church and school are not divided along these lines. The SDA church has integrated churches and Black regional churches and the choice to attend either. However, administrators, not members, have decided to continue the "regional" churches and I doubt it is for reasons of race.
Concerning the shooting, immediately blaming this on race divides us and stirs up more violence. But the fact that it happened to anyone–black or not–represents a danger to the public and especially unarmed youth.
I agree with Sahlin's quote: “Young people like Trayvon Martin are the future of the Adventist faith.”
This event should lead us to wonder why more aren't protesting the killing of hundreds, maybe thousands of young people in our cities. Many of them have been innocent bystanders. I hear the cries of many mothers on TV news about sons and even daughters murdered on the streets of America. Stop making it a race issue and target the acts of violence through education, rehabilitation rather than punishment for first or less crimes, parental influence, personal faith, and direction. Meanwhile our prison system remains an anachornistic school for perpetuating crime.
As usual, Ella, your comments are wise. It bothers me that politics and the news cycle seem to be dictating the object and content of public and Adventist leader sentiment. I wish I could read a story from a Christian whose life was intertwined with Treyvon's – who made a difference or was trying to make a difference in his life – rather than pious calls for justice. Why is justice more important in this case than in thousands of other situations where young Black men have clearly been murdered in cold blood? Justice may be difficult to know, much less achieve. It has already been badly subverted in the strident speeches and actions of folks like Al Sharpton, The Black Panthers, and Spike Lee. Why would Christian leaders jump on a train that has been set in motion, and is being run, by extremists and race merchants?
By publicly speaking out on this case, Christian leaders give credence to the agendas of the promoters of the media and political circus that makes justice highly unlikely to occur. What issue is it that Pastor Sahlin wants us to deal with? Is it the quotidian inner city violence that takes the lives of thousands of young men of color each year? Or is it merely the rare occasions when a tragic homicide of a young black men can be exploited to advance a racial agenda? Why and how should the Church deal with an irreversibly politicized tragedy?
Aren't young Latinos like George Zimmerman also the future of the Church? To me, the call of Christ is to look beyond issues and commit our lives to personal acts of justice and mercy. Treyvon Martin is only significant on a national level because he has become a mascot to exploit and fan the fires of racial grievances. I have no sympathy for George Zimmerman, nor do I blame Treyvon Martin. I don't know enough, and I feel that justice is usually ill-served by trying cases in the court of public opinion. This should be viewed as a run-of-the-mill homicide investigation. And we should wait until the evidence comes out before making judgments or infusing the case with symbolic significance.
without the public outcry, the "evidence" would not have come out.
therein lies the problem.
I see little moral value in seeking ethnic diversity within a mob. Whether the cause is Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzales, or Tawana Brawley, the mob is seldom interested in justice as the equal application of the law. More often, the mob sees its sentimental agenda as a trump card, and the prescribed legal process as an impediment, to justice. Pastor Coffin's "clarification" only underscores how misguided it was for him to side with the mob based upon his subjective reaction to the very poor judgment used by Mr. Zimmerman in following Treyvon Martin.
What happened once the encounter took place? What, if any, crime was committed? What are the legal elements of any defenses that might be applicable? Can criminal guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law? Are these important questions to Pastor Coffin? Does he have answers to these questions? Does Pastor Coffin believe that the high burden of proof placed upon the state in order to hold someone criminally liable should be suspended when Latinos, Anglos, or Asians commit homicides against Blacks? In a justice system predicated on the belief that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted, the state often finds itself unable to convict the factually guilty in a court of law.
It is evident that the mob calling for "justice" believes that different rules should apply when a non-Black person takes the law into his own hands against a Black person. Mobs believe that legal technicalities like elements of the crime and proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be suspended when larger issues such as racial justice and right-to-life are at stake. This is incredibly dangerous thinking. It led to kristallnacht and the holocaust; it led to the L.A. riots, which took many lives and resulted in a billion dollars in property damage; it leads to Muslim violence; I could go on and on. It led to the rule of law being disregarded on Passion Friday to pave the way for the crucifixion of Christ.
Laws and morality based on the collective grievances of identity groups produce a kind of self-perpetuating moral pathology that, in seeking justice, only compounds injustice. It promotes warfare and divisiveness. I am not aware of incidents where Christ added His moral authority to the identity group grievances of His day. He did not call a press conference or incite the mob to protest the beheading of John the Baptist. It may give us moral thrills to pick up the rhetorical tools of earthly political warfare in pursuit of justice. But I believe we harm the cause of Christ when we join or abet the impassioned demands of the mob for extra-legal trial, judgment, and execution of justice.
Nate,
Thank you for the legal illumunation and indeed in a court of law the "collective" grieveances of a particular ethnic group are not relevant. Thank heavens. In the name of "racial justice" many in the minority community are willing to suspend rules of evidence and allow for "justice" that is driven by emotion. A most dangerous situation. If a thorough investigation clears the one man, the calls for "extra legal trial and execution of justice" will be shrill and loud.
what were the "different rules" the "mob" was requesting?
This "speaking out" has occured when the media narrative was that Martin was some innocent choir boy and Zimmerman a racist killer. Now we have NBC guilty of altering the 911 call so as to make Zimmerma appear to be a racist. Not so and NBC has admitted to their altering of the tape. The willingness of the media to be involved in creating a false narrative for the court of public opinion is appalliing. The media along with known hypocrites such as Sharpton and Jessie Jackson calling for "justice" does not help matters.
Now the evidence slowly is coming out and in the end this may be an actual case of justifiabl self defense under Florida law. I do like the new racist category of "hispanic cracker". My wife who is hispanic and myself (caucasian) got a smile out of that one. I guess that makes our kids, "hispanic crackers." From my perspective there is "no peace" among the races within any religion. What exists appears to be unspoken and uneasy, tension.
The Florida police are the guilty party. In failing to hold Zimmerman until all possible questions were answered, instead, they asked a few perfunctory questions and dismissed him. No homicide case should be dispensed as if it were a traffic ticket. Whether this indicates a dismissal because of race, it makes no difference. They were completely negligent which may prevent a fair and honest hearing if it goes to court. They have poisoned the well making a mockery of any further action by the courts.
Please read the editorial written by Susan Estrich which I linked to below. It isn't the Florida police – the easiest thing in the world would have been for them to arrest the man. They certainly would have saved themselves a lot of grief and bad press if they had done so. I wasn't there, jesse Jackson wasn't there, and neither was Al Sharpton. The cops simply did not have enough evidence for an arrest.
So Elaine, you think the police should have held Zimmerman until all possible questions were answered??? What if they honestly didn't believe they had probable cause to take him into custody? Should they have called Elaine Nelson to get her expert legal analysis? Amazing how folks who get passionate about extending Constititutional protections to non-citizens want to suspend habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence for American citizens who may have committed crimes against members of politically favored special interest groups. Let's just hold him in custody "until all possible questions are answered." Wow!
I often find myself agreeing with my friend Elaine. But her unequivocal condemnation of the Florida PD for the crime of “..failing to hold Zimmerman until all possible questions were answered, instead, they asked a few perfunctory questions and dismissed him” to be frightening. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking seems typical of the political left. When one is accused of killing a black man, are such suspects presumed guilty until proven innocent? Does she have a transcript of the police interview with him?
Nathan’s reply to her gets it exactly right on this one.
The manner in which the information on this homicide has slowly leaked out only demonstrates that there was a cursory judgment made. The police have been indicted in a number of false allegations: the Innocent Project has confirmed this and information and the Katrina New Orleans Police who shot five unarmed victims, then planted guns on them and testified in court against them.
In the area of California where I live anytime someone shoots and kills someone, there is not such a speedy exoneration. And when police shoot and kill, they are placed on administrative leave until a thorough investigation is made. Shouldn't a self-appointed watchman who shoots and he is the only witness, be able to explain more then "self-defense" against a teen weighing much less, and unarmed?
If the PD did due diligence in investigating this homicide, why are they gradually releasing information that was not revealed originally? Of course there was "doctoring" of the audio tape, plus forensic voice interpreter agreed the voice appealing for help was NOT Zimmerman. It is the various news releases that have caused questioning.
It has been used for centuries or more: the living protest that they were attacked or had good reason to shoot. The dead cannot talk.
Question: If it were your son would you accept the PD explanation with no problem? Many such incidents have resulted in a change in the original decision. Any such hasty decision when it is a death by gunshot should be subjected to more than was in this case.
The accusation of "leftist bias" has no basis other than someone wishes to use that term. There are more white-on-white shootings than of whites shooting blacks. Death is an equal opportunity crime. I never accused Zimmerman of a hate crime–this thought only comes to those who see political left issues where there may be none.
Nate, please do not put words in my mouth. I never called for Zimmerman's arrest. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. The sticking point, for me: how long does it take to verify one's innocence if it is based solely on his own account? Did the police have all the 911 tapes when they initially interrogated him? Were the "voices" heard ever positivly identified? How long was Zimmerman interrogated? By whom?
Did he have an attorney present? If not, everything he said could be thrown out under Miranda rules. When all those questions have been answered, we will all know more and should be satisfied with the final verdict.
Elaine – I quoted your exact words. It is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that I accused you of calling for Zimmerman's arrest. Having spent the first fifteen years of my career as a prosecutor, I know the difference between arrest and detention. I called you out for precisely what you said: The police should have held Zimmerman until all possible questions were answered. You have lots of questions that you cannot answer. Yet it has not prevented you from jumping to conclusions and rendering judgments. Do you realize that Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations? Maybe the police didn't hold Zimmerman in custody because he would be more likely to talk without a Miranda warning. Or maybe they did take him into custody, questioned him, and then released him because they didn't have enough evidence to continue holding him. We don't know.
Often, all questions cannot be answered. The only questions that count are these: 1) Does a prosecutor with jurisdiction believe there is probable cause to think that Zimmerman committed a crime? 2) Is the evidence strong enough to persuade a jury of 12 to unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman committed a crime?
I love the way you indict yourself in trying to defend yourself, Elaine: You have essentially said the following in back to back sentences: "I believe in innocent until proven guilty as long as one can verify his innocence by something other than his own account." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
The truth is, Elaine, as an Innocent Project lemming, you don't believe in guilt, even when it is proven and determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury verdict, unless it meets your standards. So why should you believe in innocence when no evidence has been introduced in a court of law, there has been no jury determination, and the fragmentary evidence available through news sources mostly comes loaded with ideological agendas?
in your experience, how often was a Prosecutor
with jurisdiction consulted BEFORE an arrest was made
in a killing?
The rush to judgment in this case without a trial has been truly frightening. I wasn't there, neither were any of the people on this thread who have found Mr. Zimmerman guilty and seem to be itching to form a lynch mob. Susan Estrich (law professor, former campaign director for Mike Dukakis, continued devoted liberal) wrote a brilliant piece this week about how we must protect our constitution and not prejudge anyone. Copy and paste this link if it doesn't automatically hyperlink. http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/18097448/article-Susan-Estrich–Trayvon-Martin—What-Really-Happened-?instance=special%20_coverage_right_column
Your points are valid, but you might want to recheck the details. Richard Jewell (the accused in the Atlanta bombing) was white. Did you mean Rodney King as opposed to Willie Horton? Willie Horton was the Massachusetts furloughed felon (furloughed by Dukakis) who went on to rape a woman and stab her fiance while out on furlough. Rodney King was the LA drunk beat up by cops on video, also noted for the fine phrase, "Can't we all just get along?"
"But aren't we premature to make a statement? Who has all the facts yet? I know I don't. I've been following this case quite closely and, as is always, there is conflicting information." B. Owen
You are absolutely correct and anyone rushing to judgment should place himself in Zimmerman's place.
The press, in general, has been eager to pander and I'll let you decide in what direction it has been pandering.
Connie: "I wasn't there, neither were any of the people on this thread who have found Mr. Zimmerman guilty and seem to be itching to form a lynch mob."
Connie – you have hit the nail on the head, to use a homely expression. Why do so many allow mob rule to take over? And to set a bounty on Zimmerman's head is racist folly.
Now, will Pastor Jackson speak out when there are other senseless killings? Or has he allowed emotion and/or pressure to trump reason?
I believe he should have kept his peace as I see nothing helpful is his apparently taking sides in this case.
What is Jackson and Sharpton doing to help the kids in the urban cities? Or any of these pastors?
Not to muddy the dislike of Sharpton, Jackson, et al with facts,
both men lead ongoing efforts to help urban communities.
They actually lead lives when you and I aren't watching them
on television. And both are VERY active in precisely the issue you identified.
I'm a fan of neither, but the REASON people call them when these sorts of
issues come up is because of their involvement in issues you and I aren't watching.
I finally took the trouble to read the Susan Estrich article. While it is certainly a welcome cut above the mob mentality of her ideological comrades, in my opinion it still falls far short of what an esteemed law professor should dare to write in a published article over her name.
She writes,
“With the eyes of the nation upon them, with the president comparing Martin to the son he doesn’t have, with marchers and editorials, the easiest thing, the most political thing, the move that would turn down the temperature would be to arrest Zimmerman.” (She goes on to justify why he was not arrested)
Now this seems reasonable, if in fact he was not arrested. But haven’t we seen video of Zimmerman in handcuffs at the police station? I was shocked to see this video after I was told by the likes of the Estrichs that he had not been arrested. Here is what I found when I looked up the definition of arrest:
“…An "arrest" occurs when a person has been taken into police custody and is no longer free to leave or move about. … The key to an arrest is the exercise of police authority over a person, and that person's voluntary or involuntary submission.”
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html?DCMP=GOO-CRIM_General-Arrest&HBX_PK=what+is+an+arrest
Being in handcuffs seems to meet the conditions of arrest.
Then, concerning past examples of the liberal mob’s rush to judgement, she writes,
“The most notorious example of this, obviously, was the Duke lacrosse team case, where the prosecutor moved too fast, where his motives were political, where a thorough investigation would have spared not only the young men involved but also, ironically, the young woman, whose reputation was also ruined in the process.”
“…the young woman, whose reputation was also ruined in the process.”?? This appears to be pandering to the feminists and blacks. The African-American woman who made the false rape charge, Crystal Gail Mangum, was by any reasonable standard, “morally challenged” from before she made the false rape accusation. Her reputation was not “ruined in the process.” Her own despicable behavior ruined her reputation, which is just as it should be. The process merely documented it, and Mangum asked for it when she made her false accusation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Mangum
Would Estrich have been as generous had a whilte man falsely accused a black man or rape? You know the answer.
Handcuffs only mean that you are temporarily in police custody. You are not "under arrest" until charges have been filed and you are given a cell. Many have been put in handcuffs, and released several hours later with no arrest having been made. Handcuffs are placed on all DUI accused, but usually released in a few hours. In California with prison space at premium, repeat car thieves have been in a "revolving door."
What a joke, Elaine. I hope you never again condemn a minister for being unqualified to render opinions about science. You are so off base on what "arrest" means…it's pointless to argue with you. Suffice it to say that an arrest requires neither handcuffs, a cell, nor the filing of charges. Have you ever heard of "a citizen's arrest? But then what do I know? I only spent fifteen years in the D.A.'s office, the last five as Chief Deputy District Attorney for San Bernardino County.
Thanks, Elaine. I am not a lawyer so maybe you are right. But I gave you the source of my definition, and the website that was the basis of my opinion. Show me better documentation than mine; not merely an assertion.
Common sense seems that being charged and assigned a cell represents another level of police intrusion than merely an arrest. According to what you say, there can be no such thing as an arrest without a charge being filed. I seem to recollect that the police can hold someone in a cell for quite a few hours before filing a formal charge. Are you saying that is not possible? We are not talking about California. Just asking.
My information is from a very close relative who spent nearly 20 years in the California Correctional Insitutions. Other states may vary on arrest and imprisonment. Also, personal acquaintances who were handcuffed and spent a few hours in prison ("holding tank" preliminary to arrest or release), but were never arrested or charged.
Dennis, I copied the exact link you gave above and "there is no document that meets these words."
Elaine, I just cut and pasted the same link from my previous post and got exactly the same result as I have already posted. Your documentation is just anecdotal! Why would you stake your reputation on something as flimsy as that? I don't take what even my own granny says (may they both rest in peace) for granted and would feel the need for independent verification before posting some unqualified assertion for public consumption! Neither should you (metaphorically, I know). Produce hard documentation or give it up! You know I love you, Elaine.
Glad to hear from you, Nathan. What is wrong with Estrich??
I'm not sure what you're asking, Dennis, when you ask, "What's wrong with Estrich?" "Arrest" can be both a technical concept and a lay term. I'm sure you could find one definition in a police training manual, and another in a dictionary. Taking a person into custody for questioning does not require an arrest, and an arrest does not require that a person be placed in handcuffs. It does not require the filing of criminal charges with the court. At it's most basic level, "arrest" is using the authority of the state to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement based upon a belief, by someone purporting to act under color of law, that a crime has been committed. An arrest can immediately be followed by a cite release, or it may entail taking the arrestee to the police station for booking. A handcuffed person in police custody certainly implies an arrest, though it could also be consistent with a person simply being in custody pending investigation. The law, however, limits the time that a person can be held without hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe he has committed a crime. Whether Zimmerman was arrested or merely taken into custody for questioning seems inconsequential to me.
I think the main difference between custody and arrest is that law enforcement officers are required to report arrests to state agencies that track that kind of information, keep statistics, and disseminate arrest information as authorized and required by law. Whether charges are filed at all, and what those charges are is a totally different matter. That is up to the district attorney or the attorney general. If I disagree with Susan Estrich – not sure I do – I suspect it is a matter of semantics. She is paid to be right on the facts, and she has certainly researched Florida law, of which I profess no knowledge. My understandings are based upon my general legal training and criminal law experience in California – and I haven't practiced criminal law for over 22 years. I strongly suspect that Zimmerman's defense would be much more tenuous under California law, though it is my understanding that, even under California law, one is entitled to use deadly force to protect against a reasonable and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Whether that defense would apply if one unreasonably placed himself in harm's way is another question.
BTW, Joe, an outstanding warrant is not an "arrest" record. It simply gives law enforcement probable cause to arrest you if they stop you for say a traffic violation, run a records check, and see the outstanding warrant.
It is always good to see you here, Dennis, my friend. You too, Elaine. I'm sure you know I admire you.
I am not an attorney and have no legal expertise, so I am not claiming any.
We have all seen information about people being "detained" without being formally charged. Sometimes this is as "a person of interest" or for the individual's own "protection." "Arrest" as a colloquial term seems to just mean that someone has been "stopped." But just a traffic stop does not necessarily result in an "arrest," formally or otherwise.
As an aside, I recently underwent an FBI review in connection with a professional position. Back came a record of my arrest in 1971 on a warrant regarding an unpaid parking meter violation–a ticket I had paid, but the clerk had failed to record that I paid and got my impounded vehicle back. So, interesting. I have a criminal record, well, at least an arrest record.
The Trayvon Martin tragedy is a Rorschach test and a demonstration of why, sadly, there can and will never be a resolution to the racial divide in America.
The comments here are exemplars of this. Some people, notably idealistic Adventists among them, understandably have trouble accepting this. Not me.
I’m sorry brother, but I truly do not understand what “the idealism of ‘pronoia’” means; and neither do I understand what is surprising about stereotyping in this context. Stereotyping is endemic to the lamentable reality.
The Trayvon Martin incident is a tragedy that naturally provokes opinion. The lines had been drawn, and trenches dug, long ago.
Overgeneralization, stereotyping, and prejudice are all common characteristics of human cognition. Recognition that they occur, in ourselves and others, is a step toward fairness. Sadly, some stereotypes are reinforced by real experiences, and we are all vulnerable to taking note of events that reinforce our stereotypes, while we ignore what we regard as "exceptions." To make matters worse, when others point out our use of these defense mechanisms, we often quickly resort to denial, which is just another defense mechanism.
Let us try to recognize when we are making prejudicial decisions, and when we are overgeneralizing and stereotyping others. We all do it. We can't help doing it. But we can, in in some cases, recognize what we have done and make sure that we do not base decisions about individuals on characteristics we attribute to the groups with which we identify them.
Some of what we call "paranoia" is actually based on realistic, or somewhat realistic, fear–despite the common definition as "irrational fear." Much of what we feel, and many of the feelings we act on are not all that rational.
It is interesting that two groups can hold the same stereotype of a particular group but interpret it differently. Group A and B may agreee that members of Group A are stereotypically likely to do/be X, but group A will see it as positive or excusable, while group B will see it as negative and in need of changing. That can make conversations between the two groups difficult.
Joe Erwin, A Today might do well to have you as a moderator.
I think that I agree Joe. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that stereotyping and prejudice is endemic to the human condition; which is indeed reality.
However, I don’t perceive any difference between stereotyping or discriminating for or against individuals, and doing the same for/against the (demographic) “groups” with which they may be associated.
Joe, Nathan, Elaine, Doctorf, nice to see you guys are still at it.
Now let me see if I can make some sense out of this. According to what I have just read here, people who yell and scream because Zimmerman was "not arrested" despite the fact that he was handcuffed and hauled off to the police station (obviously against his will) to be interrogated, may or may not be factually correct because "arrest" can mean anything people want it to mean, depending on the state they are in, or the state of mind they are in. So arrest has basically the same definition as "thingamajig," "whatchamacallit," or "Rorshach inkblot."
Maybe my instinct is wrong, but that seems like committing verbicide. I am still the only one that has produced a non-anecdotal definition. Since Elaine denies that the website I produced earlier has a definition, I will reproduce it here in full:
"An 'arrest' occurs when a person has been taken into police custody and is no longer free to leave or move about. The use of physical restraint or handcuffs is not necessary. An arrest can be complete when a police officer simply tells a crime suspect that he or she is "under arrest", and the suspect submits without the officer's use of any physical force. The key to an arrest is the exercise of police authority over a person, and that person's voluntary or involuntary submission."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/arrest.html?DCMP=GOO-CRIM_General-Arrest&HBX_PK=what+is+an+arrest
As for Estrich being assumed to be factually correct, do you suppose she researched Crystal Gail Mangum’s history, (see my Wikipedia link) before and after the Duke lacrosse team case and just assumed everybody who read her piece would be ignorant, so she could bluff her way through it? I doubt it. I vote for the theory that she was just thinking with her "politically correct" brain, which ignores inconvenient facts. So I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt on her implied theory of "arrest" either. Somebody needs to find me a more authoritative definition than I have produced, which is consistent with what Nathan first wrote. Is Florida a rare exception to this common sense, seemingly universal definition? Possibly, but I doubt it. If it was, then I think Estrich would feel obligated to explain why she only looks like she is trying to placate the lynch mob on this issue, but is not. As it is, she is still trying to placate them, but trying to draw a different line in the sand for them.
However Dennis, you will acknowledge, won’t you, that Zimmerman was not arrested; since the police and prosecutor’s office have, of course, claimed that it would have been illegal to arrest him under existing Florida law?
(I concur that it is clearly a technicality as to the difference between being taken into custody and being arrested—for purposes of how one feels, at least.)
Stephen, thanks for that argument. If that was said ("… it would have been illegal to arrest him under existing Florida law…") by those offices in those very words, despite the fact that the whole world has seen Zimmerman getting out of a police car in handcuffs at their police station, then I would be willing to agree that they themselves don't think that hauling someone to the police station in handcuffs is arresting someone.
However, I spent about 45 minutes looking through news reports to see the police department/prosecutors office making such a statement and failed to confirm. What I did find was others making that statement. If you can show me where I can confirm that statement coming from them, I would appreciate it.
I don't think it should depend on how one is feeling that day as to whether being put in handcuffs and hauled off to jail is called an arrest.
I am taking the liberty, Dennis, to provide a source of information that I am assuming you may find somewhat credible.
This source does not quote the prosecutors or the police but does put this “arrest” question in that context.
The outrage, I can tell you, is in large part because “probable cause” was presumably self-evident.
Of course, you disagree with this.
http://www.redstate.com/uplateagain/2012/03/30/why-zimmerman-has-not-been-arrested/
(How someone feels does not define “arrest.” You missed my point on that completely; which is OK, because it wasn’t important.)
I do like that we … all of us … no matter what our skin … are talking about this. There does seem "probable cause" … Were forensics brought to the scene, to photograph the sidewalk, to take prints, was anything normal standard of procedure done? Does the Sanford police department have a pattern of not following procedure? I am so glad this will go to trial now. Hopefully the true facts will somehow come out by the actual forensics and not by the media.
Why so much todo about this one case when Blacks and Whites are being mudered every day in cities such as Chicago? Certainly, Trayvon's parents have reason to sorrow as well as want justice. But is their case more significant than those parents who lose children every day to murder?
Why have so many allowed this case above all others to consume them day after day? Is it because of the Al Shrapnels? Let justice have its way, folks.
Stephen, that was an excellent link! However, it is only concerned with what happens from this point forward (and on that point I am in total agreement); not what already happened on the night of the shooting, which is my concern.
"Arrest is the taking of a person into lawful custody. The operative word in that sentence is LAWFUL. The police at this point CANNOT arrest Zimmerman without an arrest warrant having been issued. He is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from making an unreasonable seizure of a person (an arrest) without a warrant, issued under probable cause. The ability for cops to arrest based on probable cause is an EXCEPTION to the warrant rule, held by the courts to be a ‘reasonable’ seizure without a warrant if founded in exigent circumstances."
In the website I have already posted twice, there is a section that elaborates on examples of exigent circumstances:
The Police Officer Has "Probable Cause" to Arrest
When a police officer has a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, the officer may arrest that person. This belief, known as "probable cause," may arise from any number of different facts and circumstances. For example:
A police officer receives a report of an armed robbery that has just occurred at a liquor store, then sees a man who matches the suspect's exact description running down the street near the store. The officer detains and searches the man, finding a gun and a large amount of cash in his pockets. The officer can arrest the man, based on a probable cause belief that he committed a robbery.
The Martin case seems analogous to the above. The police were notified by the 911 operator that there was a shooting; they arrive soon after and find Martin shot dead, and Zimmerman standing nearby who admits to owning and shooting the gun used to kill Martin. They have "probable cause," so they handcuff him (arrest him, according to this website’s definition of "arrest") and take him to the station where they interrogate him and then decide to release him without a charge, because "self defense" seems plausible.
That seems to be what happened, doesn’t it? Now, of course, a higher standard for arrest is needed, because the "exigent circumstances" exception no longer applies. That is what your website is dealing with.
So I agree that "probable cause" was valid under the "exigent circumstances" exception that the arresting officers at the scene of the crime encountered. But now, a higher standard applies. So there are two different standards for probable cause, it seems to me. The confusion seems to be on this point.
Excellent points, Dennis. Once an arrest occurs, the clock starts running. At least in California, the arrestee must be arraigned within a certain amount of time – as I recall, 48 hours if he is in custody. That means he is brought before a judge, where the charges filed by the D.A. are read, and a plea is entered. If the D.A. hasn't figured out what to file, the suspect will be released. Assuming charges have been filed, the arrestee then has a right to a preliminary hearing within 10 days, at which time the D.A. must present evidence to persuade a judge that there is probable cause to hold the suspect until trial. In California, I believe the defendant has a right to trial within 60 days.
So you can see that once the clock starts running, and the D.A. has to put on evidence, the case can take on a life of its own that may head off in a different direction than anticipated or intended. If the D.A. moves too quickly, he or she may lose control over the investigation, and compromise the ability to convict. The D.A. isn't interested in simply establishing probable cause to arrest. Does anyone really think that the vengeful mob would be placated by a rush to charge that resulted in no criminal conviction? Knowing that, prosecuting authorities want to be sure they get it right. The evidence might support first degree murder; it might support second degree murder; maybe voluntary manslaughter; maybe only involuntary manslaughter. Each of these charges has specific legal elements, every one of which must unanimously be found true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does anyone seriously believe that the D.A. could have completed the investigation and been ready to make an informed charging decision within the time parameters I have described? Of course not. Trayvon's family and attorneys sound like they are behaving responsibly and trusting the system. So should we.
Those who insist on seeing race relations in America through the prism of this event don't need or want accurate facts. They view facts, evidence, and the rule of law as distractions by which "the oppressor" delays and denies justice, diverting the nation's attention from the mirror of "reality" in which its evil and racist character should be seen. They view Trayvon Martin as a martyr in their war for a cosmic justice that can only be achieved by vindication and institutionalization of their metanarrative. What a destructive and scary mindset!
We are getting to the heart of the matter now, in my humble opinion.
“The police were notified by the 911 operator that there was a shooting; they arrive soon after and find Martin shot dead, and Zimmerman standing nearby who admits to owning and shooting the gun used to kill Martin. They have "probable cause," so they handcuff him (arrest him, according to this website’s definition of "arrest") and take him to the station where they interrogate him and then decide to release him without a charge, because "self defense" seems plausible.
That seems to be what happened, doesn’t it?”
Well, not really. At the risk of being labeled as part of a lynch mob, what “seems to be what happened” can be somewhat “different.”
Prior to the police being notified by the 911 operator of a shooting, the police were notified by the 911 operator that there was a suspicious looking guy—who appeared to be black—wandering around the neighborhood; and it appeared to the caller (Zimmerman) as though something about him was not right. According to the caller (Zimmerman), the suspicious guy had made eye contact with him (the caller) while the caller was in his vehicle, and started to walk away in another direction. The caller (Zimmerman), who was armed with a 9mm. weapon, got out of his vehicle and started to follow the suspicious guy on foot as he was on the phone with the 911 operator. The 911 operator strongly cautioned against this pursuit, clearly telling the caller (Zimmerman) “we do not need you to do that” and that police were in route. At the same time the black guy being pursued is on the phone with a female friend of his—while the caller is on the phone with the 911 operator as he is pursuing. All of this takes place prior to the “shooting” 911 call.
There are, of course, more details and more 911 calls, but you get my point. There can be a good deal more to what seems to have happened, depending on your…uhm, perspective, shall we say.
We will undoubtedly get into many of the other details; but we do know that charges were not filed, we know that the black guy was unarmed, and that there were desperate screams or yells heard prior to the gunshots; at which point the screams and yells promptly ceased.
All very fair and important observations, Stephen. The one moral judgment that seems quite evident to everyone is that Zimmerman used very poor judgment. It is certainly possible that racial profiling was a significant contributing factor. I don't think we know enough, unless we Ratherize the evidence, to reach that conclusion. And even if that turns out to be the case, the reality that "status" crimes are committed does not make such crimes symbolic of systemic pathologies in American institutions or character.
I think the more interesting and worthy debate that this incident should generate, even if no criminal charges can be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt, is handgun control. Without a gun in his pocket, I seriously doubt that Zimmerman would have followed Martin. Of course I am also well aware that many murders have been prevented because law-abiding citizens happened to be carrying handguns. I am viscerally anti-handgun, though I would have a difficult time defending the rationality of my position would someone like John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime).
My utter surprise at your opposition to hand guns notwithstanding, the statement that “the one moral judgment that seems quite evident to everyone is that Zimmerman used very poor judgment” is a world class understatement and, as such, somewhat insensitive and insulting.
I am aware that you intended nothing of the sort, but providing you with another perspective is apparently my raison d’etre.
Zimmerman’s “judgment” is the reason that Trayvon Martin is dead. This is yet another reason why the outrage at the prosecutorial judgment that there was no probable cause for an arrest for the charge of some degree of manslaughter, at least, persists.
I mean, if it is a universally self-evident moral judgment that Zimmerman’s “poor judgment” contributed, shall we say, to this occurrence, and if those screams and yells were not unquestionably Zimmerman’s, and if the idiotic so-called “stand your ground” law equally applied to Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman, then Zimmerman should certainly have been charged with something.
You probably disagree for some reason, but you should at least see why everyone who is outraged is not necessarily unreasonable.
Again, Stephen, I quite agree. I intended "poor judgment" as the lowest common denominator on which even those who are inclined to defend George Zimmerman will agree. Certainly reasonable minds could reach the conclusion, based on available evidence, that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Since I don't think all reasonable minds would necessarily reach that conclusion, I was simply suggesting that even those who disagree with you would concede, at a minimum, that Zimmerman used very poor judgment. That you would find my suggestion insensitive and insulting is a disappointing, implicit concession that you are not capable of impersonally looking at the facts. I would even concede that outrage is a reasonable response. What bothers me is the exploitation of the situation to whip up violent sentiments, and to deepen racial hostility and distrust for political gain.
No offense Nathan, by why add injury to insult? Your explanation of the “poor judgment” statement concerning Zimmerman’s actions was sufficient.
Perhaps I should explain that I have previously perceived “poor judgment” explanations as euphemistic; and like you have strong, though different, opinions about the implications of this case.
Your elaboration helped me understand your statement. Why did you feel it necessary to say that because I thought (what I perceived as) an insensitive minimizing of Zimmerman’s judgments and actions was insulting, that is an indication that I cannot “impersonally look at the facts” of this tragic case? Your disdain for the “exploitation of the situation to whip up violent sentiments…” does not mean that you can’t impersonally consider evidence.
Your rendering an opinion as to the quality of Zimmerman’s judgment is not a fact of this case; neither is my having taken offense at that particular statement.
Why wouldn't 48 hours be enough time to ascertain if there was enough evidence?
This wasn't a whodunit.
It wasn't even a killing across vast stretches of a city, or with an impossibly difficult chain of evidence.
Heck, there's even a recording of the moment of the crime itself.
How long should it take to figure out if there's enough evidence to develop a prosecution? (That's a serious question, posed to a Prosecutor…)
The 48 hours isn't time to trial, it's just time to a preliminary hearing, right?
Now, Zimmerman has disappeared: his attorneys will not defend him–they don't know where he is nor do any of his friends.
This is the concern that should have prompted the police to warn him not to leave the area until this homicide has been resolved–again another mistake of the PD. Now what will happen?
"again another mistake of the PD."
What was their first mistake, Elaine? Given the ticking clock that Nathan describes above, (we have all watched enough detective shows to know, independently, that there is this race against time, once a suspect is jailed), would the PD have been smarter to have kept him in jail until now?
His attorneys would agree that he should have been incarcerated or wear an ankle "bracelet." Now, if he doesn't show up, will there ever be a further investigation or trial? How do Trayvon Martin's parents feel about this? How would you–to have someone who killed your son to have fled to parts unknown? How can justice ever be served?
Who allowed Zimmerman to so easily flee?
Elaine, so far as I know, procedural decisions regarding the disposition of arrested suspects are not, and should not be dependent upon what or how T. Martin’s parents might feel. We are supposed to be a nation of laws; not personal feelings of the parents of individual victims. So why even bring that up? Neither are such decisions governed by the opinion of "his" (I assume you mean the prosecution) attorneys. Both of them are partisans, and so are you.
Nothing wrong with that, but nothing that you have written so far implies that you give a hoot about the civil rights of suspect. So why does your judgement concerning a supposed mistake that was made by the PD mean any more than the opinion of some extreme partisans including the Al Tawana Sharptons of the world?
Do you know if requiring the suspect to wear an "ankle bracelet" is something that the PD can unilaterally impose on Zimmerman? (I don’t know, but I highly doubt it) If not, then why is not requiring him to wear one a slam dunk mistake of the PD? You know I love you, Elaine.
It is precisely because I am committed to our civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution that this homicide should have a thorough investigation.
Ankle bracelets are common in some parts of this nation to prevent a suspect from fleeing. I do not know the practice in Florida, but based on their "Stand Your Ground" Law there seems to be more laxity than other states.
Is allowing Zimmerman freedom to leave the result of neglect? Or, was it merely inevitable when someone is fatally shot to have no "hold" placed on the perpetrator? Is there a question whether Zimmerman shot Martin?
There can be no finding of guilt or innocence without the perpetrator's presence, can there? Justice will be denied until he has his day in court.
Elaine, overweight seemingly white looking people also have the same civil rights too. The fact that "Ankle bracelets are common in some parts of this nation to prevent a suspect from fleeing," or that " …Florida, …there seems to be more laxity than other states," has no bearing on whether the local PD made a mistake.
Whether or not "… there a question whether Zimmerman shot Martin?" is irrelevant, since the PD concluded that it was plausibly self defense on Zimmerman’s part. Now, their judgement may prove either right or wrong, by hindsight, but they had a right to make that judgement, and nobody can be required to get it right all the time.
Since Zimmerman is in custody your other concerns are moot.
Calm down, Elaine. Be as critical/logical as you are when you discuss the Bible.
That is all I wanted to see–Zimmerman in custody.
Is there something else that you wished to see?
Yes, Elaine. That Zimmerman is in custody is not enough. I want to see a fair trial, based on the strength of the actual evidence; not mob pressure. Not one of us on this blog, or the lynch mob, know what that actual evidence is. I trust that you want the same thing?
Elaine, I like how you answer matter of factly, even when pointed personal statements are shot at you by varying people here. You don't miss a beat and you don't take it personally.
"That seems to be what happened, doesn’t it?”
"Well, not really."
My narrative begins only after the shooting happens and the police arrive. Everything before that moment is bracketed, because it is irrelevant to the legal question of the initial "arrest." I did not mean to imply that the world began at that momnet.
But thechnically speaking, prior to that there was either Adam and Eve, or amoebas who evolved to became smarter and amarter until they invented guns, moved to Florida, etc, etc. All that happened too, but I didn't want to inlcude it in my narrative. I don't think such huge bracketing of historical narrative justifies saying "not exactly" because you want to speculate about what happened during the bracketed time period. I have heard all the rumors also, but think that needs to be a different topic for another day. The mob's inability to do that, it seems to me, is the main problem here. I am going to wait for that part of the world's history to unfold in court, if it goes to trial.
If that never happens, then I will start out by tossing Al Tawana Sharpton's account into the trash, and then sift through the rest to figure out what happened during the bracketed period.
What does the word “seems” mean or imply, if not some level of speculation; meaning an impression of an observation; or perhaps an opinion of how things appear?
On the other hand, my observations included no speculation at all; read it again.
While you have speculated on what “seems” to have happened, I have only stated what we all know to have happened.
You may want to reconsider the “mob.”
Stephen, the only "seems" I used was in the following sentence:
"The mob's inability to do that, it seems to me, is the main problem here."
The phrase " it seems to me," is to acknowledge that I understand my opinion is not to be confused with an assertion by God.
By the mob’s "inability," I mean their inability to think logically and carefully, rather than jumbling everything up so they can feel outraged. By "mob" I mean the likes of Al Tawana Sharpton and his defenders/enablers. I certainly don’t include you in that category.
You write: "On the other hand, my observations included no speculation at all; read it again."
As I previously explained, that information lies outside the time frame of my narrative, so that is "a discussion for another day;" after the trial when we get to cross examine all the supposed facts that we think we know.
…the only "seems" I used was in the following sentence:
"The mob's inability to do that, it seems to me, is the main problem here."
Well, not really.
Did you not also write these words: “That seems to be what happened, doesn’t it?”
That is the “seems” to which I had reference as an implication/indication of speculation on your part about “what happened.”
Trayvon’s and Zimmerman’s interactions preceding the shooting (or any 911 call notifying police of the shooting) are, of course, quite relevant. Anything that led to the shooting is integral to the case, as you know.
I have heard actual excerpts of real time 911 calls, which are not rumors, but the record of events and they would be all that is relavent when it comes right down to it. They are the evidence, not rumors.
Wow! Sorry, I overlooked that! But again, I am only referring to the sequence of events after the police arrived, and am bracketing all that went before it, (see the example incident provided by the website I provided) because my interest is in the first "arrest" that is being denied. I am arguing that he was already arrested on the night of the crime, so it is ridiculous to complain that Zimmerman was not arrested.
What happened before the police arrived is of course relevant to the trial, but not to the question of whether Zimmerman had already been arrested once. If you look at the history of my participation in this thread, it was to complain that Estrich, who some think is the goddess of reason (at least among political liberals), did not even get her basic history right, and seems to have been pandering to the lynch mob that was outraged that Zimmerman had not even been arrested.
In my opinion, if she wanted to be factually and civicly responsible, she should have said something like, "Calm down, [lynch mob]. Zimmerman was arrested. It's just that he just wasn't charged, and then released, and that for good reasion, because blah, blah, blah…."
I am extremely interested in the trial itself, but am afraid that the claims we are now being fed may not prove to be accurate.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, and my mistake!
It seems to me, Dennis that what we have here is a semantic difference. Those who claim Zimmerman was never arrested aren't really concerned about whether he was taken into custody for questioning. Their beef is that he was never placed under arrest and held for a criminal charge. They are arguing that the questioning was cursory, and that his self-serving statements apparently were not critically evaluated by investigating officers, leading to his quick release. It is my belief that actually arresting someone for a criminal offense is a formality that must be reported to state and federal law enforcement agencies. And I am unaware of that having occurred. I don't think that taking someone into custody for questioning and then releasing them without charges or booking is really considered an arrest.
It seems evident, in hindsight that, even if Zimmerman had been arrested, he would have been released, because neither law enforcement nor the prosecutor would have been ready to comply with the speedy arraignment, probable cause hearings, and trial that Zimmerman was Constitutionally entitled to. This is not uncommon. Many times, when I was a prosecutor, we had to wait to file charges, book and arrest suspects whom we strongly believed were guilty, because we wanted to be fully prepared to proceed before being put under the pressure of speedy hearing rights. Of course it does not appear that this was the reasoning of law enforcement in the Trayvon Martin case when they released Zimmerman.
The issue in this case is not that Zimmerman should have been arrested. Activists believe that the Sanford Police Department did a cursory investigation for nefarious reasons. Their claim that he should have been arrested is really a shorthand way of saying that the Sanford P.D. whitewashed the case.
Thank you, Nathan. I agree that it is a "short hand" for saying "the Sanford P.D. whitewashed the case." But I think such "short hands" are highly problematic and cross the line.
Suppose I am filling out an application for a job. I am asked, "Have you ever been arrested for any reason?"
Let us say for the sake of argument, that I was hauled off to jail 10 times for various reasons, but I was always able to give suffient reason to avoid being actually charged. So I was always released after being interrogated.
So I answer, under oath, "No, I have never been arrested."
Let us say the company's background check is thorough and discover I have been arrested 10 times. Then they accuse me of giving false a statement, and fire me on that basis.
Can I argue, "Hey, that is not fair! Al Tawana Sharpton and Susan Estrich both deny Zimmeran was arrested despite the fact that he was taken to jail in handcuffs. So I thought that the same rule applies to my case!"
Am I going to get the legal establishment coming to my defense? Elaine, Stephen?
Clearly Dennis, you either did not read or did not understand or did not believe Nathan’s explanation of this semantic discrepancy.
Unless you are charged with something you have no criminal arrest record; because law enforcement hasn’t accused you of doing anything.
Indeed this was the primary cause for the outrage surrounding this incident. It was certainly the cause for my personal outrage.
If it is possible that the audible screams and yells were from Trayvon, then Zimmerman should have been charged with something.
You have been derisive of the activist pressure without which there would have been no charges. Imagine if you will if Zimmerman’s father had been black and Zimmerman looked black, and the unarmed Martin had not been black. What side of this would you think that Sharpton would have taken? What side would you have taken?
If Zimmerman’s father had been black (and he himself looked black), and his name was Johnson or Washington, and if Martin had been a non-black teenager (named Billy or Kevin); then Zimmerman (or Johnson) would very likely have long ago been charged with something and we wouldn’t be discussing if he had been arrested or not.
On the other hand, if both Zimmerman and Martin had been black, we wouldn’t have been talking about this at all.
Stephen,
You write:
“Clearly Dennis, you either did not read or did not understand or did not believe Nathan’s explanation of this semantic discrepancy.”
But you only want to use Nathan’s words as a hammer when it suits you, and Nathan did not state his latest opinion as a fact, but only what he thinks, which was quite tentative in light of his previous statements:
Previously he stated to Elaine:
“…Suffice it to say that an arrest requires neither handcuffs, a cell, nor the filing of charges. Have you ever heard of "a citizen's arrest?”
He previously replied to me as follows:
“…Taking a person into custody for questioning does not require an arrest, and an arrest does not require that a person be placed in handcuffs. It does not require the filing of criminal charges with the court.”
“…An arrest can immediately be followed by a cite release, or it may entail taking the arrestee to the police station for booking.”
“…I think the main difference between custody and arrest is that law enforcement officers are required to report arrests to state agencies that track that kind of information, keep statistics, and disseminate arrest information as authorized and required by law. Whether charges are filed at all, and what those charges are is a totally different matter.”
If his last statement I quoted is correct, (regarding statistical purposes) then logically, it implies that an arrest need not follow with the filing of criminal charges, because in that case, the reporting of arrests would be completely redundant, since it could be accomplished by simply recording the filing of criminal charges. And it makes sense that those keeping statistics would want to see if there was a difference in the ratio of arrests to the filing of criminal charges between whites and blacks. Wouldn’t that be of interest to you if you wanted to see if there was a racial basis for making arrests?
So what you state as absolute fact, (“Unless you are charged with something you have no criminal arrest record; because law enforcement hasn’t accused you of doing anything.”) Stephen, simply justifies the mob, makes no statistical sense, and misrepresents all that Nathan has written.
You also state, “You have been derisive of the activist pressure without which there would have been no charges.”
“…without which there would have been no charges.” That is exactly what I fear. Charges ought to be on legal “evidence;” not activist pressure, no??
I missed this earlier comment of yours about arrests Dennis. For reasons best known to you, you are needlessly complicating this.
These respective statements by Nathan, who should know, and me (who could be mistaken), are either true or false (One may be true, the other false):
Nathan: “…Taking a person into custody for questioning does not require an arrest, and an arrest does not require that a person be placed in handcuffs. It does not require the filing of criminal charges with the court.”
Me: “Unless you are charged with something you have no criminal arrest record; because law enforcement hasn’t accused you of doing anything.”
I have always understood Nathan’s above statement to be true. Nathan can confirm (or deny) if my statement is true (or false). It seems self evident; but I am not a legal expert.
Stephen wrote:
“If it is possible that the audible screams and yells were from Trayvon, then Zimmerman should have been charged with something.”
Well, anything is always “possible.” (It is possible that the solipsist philosophers are right, and that what we think of as an external world is only our own mental projection, as is the case when we are dreaming.) Should the state charge all people who might “possibly” be guilty of a crime and make the tax payers pay for such speculative prosecutions? Really, such naive legal reasoning is quite scary. This is lynch mob thinking.
I don’t know who was screaming, and see no reason to go around betting the farm that it was “A,” “B,” or “C.” What is wrong with calmly withholding dogmatic conclusions until we get the best evidence?
Dennis,
We are not talking about “anything” though, are we? This is something specific.
This is a killing in which there were multiple concurrent 911 calls which have, of course, been recorded; wherein the gunshots are heard, as is the voice of someone yelling and screaming with a sound of desperation. At least one of the 911 callers who was hearing the incident is heard on tape describing what she hears as it happens, some of which can be heard in the background of the recorded call. These are all facts.
If it is possible that the voice being heard yelling and screaming is that of the unarmed decedent, which it is (clearly possible), then the self defense claim of the armed survivor is rendered questionable.
If this does not sound like prima facie probable cause for an arrest to you, then obviously not much would.
You ask “What is wrong with calmly withholding dogmatic conclusions until we get the best evidence?” Well, in theory, absolutely nothing, of course. The only problem with this is that there would have been no further search for evidence had it been left to the local prosecutor and local police; despite the expressed serious reservations about Zimmerman’s account by the lead homicide investigator. (This according to the mother of one of the 911 callers; interviewed by same.)
We don’t know whose voice is heard screaming and yelling immediately prior to the gunshots. Neither have we “[gone] around betting the farm” who it was (or wasn’t).
Now I will reiterate my speculation on the political and legal machinations involved (as opposed to the facts of the case itself.) This is a case in which the political left has taken one side and the political right has taken another. Such being the case, the governor and the special prosecution are politically/ideologically/ultimately “best” served, in my view, by not having this case go to trial.
So Dennis, in my opinion you will soon get your way (and please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming impartiality) and George Zimmerman will walk.
I could be wrong. I hope that I’m wrong. But I seriously doubt it.
Just a couple of points here – First, when I think of charges, I think of what is filed with the court. At least in California, when I was in the D.A.'s office 22 years ago, "charges" could only be filed by the D.A. The cops could arrest someone and hold him in custody, or they could arrest someone, book, and release him on his own recognizance (a written promise to appear in court on a later date). If the person was held in custody, he had to be brought before a judge within a couple of days, as I recall, at which time, if no charges had been filed by the D.A., the judge would release the person. But he would still have an arrest record. Hope this clears up the issue a bit. But please keep in mind that my expertise and knowledge is quite limited, and applies only to California 22 years ago. I doubt that things have changed much though, when it comes to speedy arraignment rights and the charging process.
Stephen, I strenuously resist your attempt to divide folks into two sides on either the right or the left. Many on both sides have decried the racial agenda and mob rhetoric that have driven this case and the public reaction. Those on the political right are, I think, uniformly resistant to the notion that the evidence adduced to date supports a racial narrative, and certainly not a racial metanarrative. Those on the left, for the most part, don't really care, because the racial metanarrative is TRUTH no matter what the facts of this specific case turn out to be. The fact that those of us on the political right profoundly disagree with that framing of the issues does not mean that we think Zimmerman is innocent or that we in any way support his conduct. There are multiple nuanced perspectives. Your oversimplification and fundamentalist tendency to posit false choices certainly advances the cause of divisiveness and conflict. But I do not believe that it serves either justice or the truth.
First off, apparently I stand corrected on my statement that a criminal arrest record is not in existence or recorded for those who have been taken into custody but never charged with anything—my mistake.
While it certainly seems to me that should be the case, Nathan says it isn’t (at least in California years ago).
Now, as to the sides taken in this case by the left and right, Nathan, you have said two contradictory things. First you strenuously resist or object to my having identified that the left and right have taken opposite sides in this case—saying that I am attempting to divide—then you promptly describe your view of the positions each side has taken.
Why is it that you seem to think that only one side has a racial agenda and/or sees a racial (meta)narrative at play?
The “law and order” right is now at odds with the prosecution who (now) claim that Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon Martin. Some apparently resist the notion that he was profiled because of his…appearance.
This is what the prosecution (now) believes happened. This along with the fact that Zimmerman wasn’t going to be charged with anything, were the reasons for the outrage. Many of us see a racial agenda in resisting the notion that Trayvon was profiled. Some see a racial agenda in the "law and order" right being routinely opposed to hate crime legislation and prosecution.
What qualifies as a racial agenda or a racial narrative/metanarrative? What qualifies an ethnic or racial classification as an identity group?
There is a difference, Stephen, between labeling different perspectives as characteristic of the Left or the Right – which I have done – and saying that the political left has taken one side and the political right has taken the other – which is what you have claimed. Tell me, what side has the political right taken? I've heard very nuanced and varied opinions on the political right. The fact that certain attitudes and opinions regarding an issue or event can be labeled as conservative or liberal does not mean that there are only two sides to that issue.
You seem stoutly resistant to the reality that most issues are more nuanced than you want them to be. Your procrustean mindset seeks to force all who disagree with your perspective into a one-size-fits-all bed of evil. There is your side – TRUTH – and then there's the other side. If someone disagrees with you, he must be on the other side. This is not a mature way of viewing the world.
The fact that I am aware of no substantive evidence that Trayvon was racially profiled doesn't mean that I am resistant to that possibility. I know that's what the prosecutor says in the charging document. But that statement isn't sourced. So it's just a plausible theory at this point in time, made plausible only because Trayvon was Black, and Zimmerman believed he was acting suspiciously.
You wrongly assume that those of us who think you are jumping to a lot of premature, unwarranted conclusions must be constitutionally unwilling to admit to the possibility that race plays a role in this case. There may well have been racial agendas at play. I know that racism exists, and that it, along with many other forms of prejudice, will always exist. If one sees America as deeply and pervasively racist in in its laws and institutions, then there is probably a presumption that whenever misfortune or evil befalls a minority, there is a racial component to be found. I have no reason to think that you share this ridiculous presupposition, so I assume rational conversation is possible. Therefore, it strikes me as arrant nonsense for someone to make the breathtaking assertion that, if I fail to embrace a theory for which there is no evidence – racial profiling – there must be a racial agenda underlying my reluctance to accept speculation as fact. ARE YOU KIDDING???
So Nathan, tell me, if I had said “Many of us see a racial agenda in resisting the notion that Trayvon was possibly profiled,” or before that had said “Some apparently resist the notion that he was possibly profiled because of his…appearance,” would that perhaps have been more acceptable?
What would qualify as substantive evidence, for you, that Trayvon was profiled by Zimmerman?
Would a documented record of having previously called police about suspicious looking people who also looked like Trayvon be considered substantive? Would dozens of such instances perhaps qualify?
Would a recorded call to 911 about Trayvon himself looking suspicious, with something muttered concerning these people (shall we say) always getting away with…whatever…somehow qualify as substantive evidence?
I’m not saying that we know any of these hypothetical situations actually occurred; I’m just trying to get a feel for what might constitute substantive evidence for you.
Since you had previously considered and described my recounting of the known facts of this case as “all very fair and important observations,” perhaps you can now identify the “premature and unwarranted conclusions” that I have jumped to since? (That is, besides my apparent misunderstanding that, actually, Zimmerman had indeed previously been arrested for this incident.)
Tell me, Nathan, does the recitation of (or even concurrence with) the conclusion of the charging document (regarding Zimmerman profiling Trayvon), exemplify the “jumping to a lot of premature and unwarranted conclusions” on my part?
The left generally being on one side and the right on the other side of this—insofar as a perception of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence is concerned—is clear and obvious. You have described your view of the perspective of either side of the political spectrum in a pretty self-serving way, if you don’t mind me saying so (which I’m sure you do):)
I can appreciate nuances in certain spheres, but I just may have a blind spot in matters of life and death.
Well, Stephen, I don't think Zimmerman is factually innocent, and I think I'm pretty far to the political right. I just don't know. And even if I do conclude in my own mind, once more evidence is made public, that Zimmerman committed an unlawful homicide, he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until evidence presented in a court of law satisfies 12 jurors that he is guilty of a crime. The right has not been saying that Zimmerman is innocent. What I have heard is, "Let the justice system work, and stop with the incendiary rhetoric." The opposite side of that position is, "The justice system cannot be trusted to work, so the rhetoric of intimidation and violence is justified and necessary." If those are the two sides you're talking about, count me with the former. Which side are you on?
Yes, your reframing of the issue in the first paragraph of your reply to my comments would have been much more acceptable, and I would agree with it. Those who resist looking at the possibility that Trayvon Martin was profiled could very reasonably be suspected of a racial agenda. Would you also concede that there is a racial agenda driving the insistence that Zimmerman would not have taken an interest in Martin, had Martin not been Black?
Would you not agree that the handling of this matter by the mainstream media and cult leaders has been reprehensible, irremediably poisoning the wells from which justice drinks and sustains itself? When the same folks proclaiming the innocence of Mummia abu Jamal, after conviction by a jury in a court of law, based on overwhelming evidence, are insisting on Zimmerman's guilt, before any evidence has been presented in a court of law, I conclude that vindication of TRUTH rather than a search for truth is driving them.
Yes, adopting the conclusion of the charging document, that Zimmerman was "profiling" Martin, is most definitely jumping to an unwarranted conclusion – unless the charging document sources that conclusion or offers a logical foundation for the conclusion. A conclusion is no better than the evidence on which it is based. If a charging document were evidence, preliminary hearings wouldn't be required.
It would of course be interesting and highly relevant to know the race of "suspicious" persons that were the subjects of prior 911 calls by Zimmerman. I still think your factual observations several days ago were fair, except that Zimmerman did not, as you contextualize it, volunteer that Trayvon was Black. Had he said, "There's a suspicious looking Black guy wandering the neighborhood," that would have strengthened the case for profiling. But clothing and behavior may have been equally significant factors. I suspect that if Trayvon had been wearing a white shirt and tie, carrying JW pamphlets, he would have looked a lot less suspicious to Zimmerman. I just don't think that the generally accepted facts, as you present them, offer a complete enough picture to warrant any conclusions about Zimmerman's reasonable state of mind, what occurred once Zimmerman and Martin made contact with each other, or what legal significance should be drawn from such conclusions.
“What I have heard is, ‘Let the justice system work, and stop with the incendiary rhetoric.’ The opposite side of that position is, ‘The justice system cannot be trusted to work, so the rhetoric of intimidation and violence is justified and necessary.’ If those are the two sides you're talking about, count me with the former. Which side are you on?”
Some people on the left and right have said, “let the justice system work…” The problem is that it was not working because the local police (with a possible/notable exception being the lead homicide investigator) and local prosecutor had decided not to further investigate. Had it not been for the agitation and publicity this would have been finished.
Of course you present a self-serving and false choice. I do not trust the justice system, that is a given. I have no choice however but to hope that justice delayed is not justice denied.
“Would you also concede that there is a racial agenda driving the insistence that Zimmerman would not have taken an interest in Martin, had Martin not been Black?”
No, because this is another false choice. For someone big on nuances, what gives? The fact is he looked suspicious and he looked black—to Zimmerman (and was dressed as he was)—who proceeded to follow him. It is quite possible that Trayvon was profiled due to the fact that he was black (and dressed as he was), and that he may have been profiled similarly had he not been black (and dressed as he was). Of course it’s also possible that he may not have been profiled had he not been black, though dressed as he was. Besides, what do you mean by a racial agenda on the part of any who may conclude that Martin would not have been followed by Zimmerman if he wasn’t black? Is it a racial agenda to point out, or to identify prejudice?
“Would you not agree that the handling of this matter by the mainstream media and cult leaders has been reprehensible, irremediably poisoning the wells from which justice drinks and sustains itself?”
Well, obviously not; except that I do not know who qualifies in this context as a “cult leader.” I think that the handling of this case by the local police and prosecutor had been “reprehensible, irremediably poisoning the wells from which justice drinks and sustains itself.”
“…adopting the conclusion of the charging document, that Zimmerman was "profiling" Martin, is most definitely jumping to an unwarranted conclusion – unless the charging document sources that conclusion or offers a logical foundation for the conclusion”
Now there’s a nuanced response! Is it unwarranted to conclude that there was a logical foundation for the charging document’s conclusion; based (perhaps) on the fact that they do have access to the “interesting and highly relevant” information as to “the race of ‘suspicious’ persons that were the subjects of prior 911 calls by Zimmerman.”
Stephen writes:
We are not talking about “anything” though, are we? This is something specific.
“Something specific” falls under the category of “anything,” so “something specific” is logically included. If we were to exclude everything “specific” from the category of “anything” by special pleading, then logically the category of “anything” could be an empty set. This absurd end result exposes the logical fallacy of special pleadings, which this is.
When he mentions a number of reports regarding the case, he sums it up by proclaiming,
“ These are all facts. ”
Yes, it is a fact that such things are being claimed. It is a fact that Sharpton claimed that Tawana Brawley was raped. It is a fact that NBC claimed it had a supposed transcript of the 911 call by Zimmerman in which he volunteers the race of Martin. The fact of the claims are not the same as the facts of the case; A difference that you apparently do not understand. If I (or someone just as skeptical) do not get to cross-examine the factual claims, then I am only going to accept them as “claims.” When you accept them at face value without a withering cross-exam, then you are not cynical, or skeptical, but a gullible person with itching ears.”
Stephen also writes,
“If it is possible that the voice being heard yelling and screaming is that of the unarmed decedent, which it is (clearly possible), then the self defense claim of the armed survivor is rendered questionable.”
I would certainly agree that if the voice is that of Martin, then it would seriously undermine the case of self-defense for Zimmerman. But I have heard conflicting reports on that, and assume that the DA was not convinced that it was Martin, or was convinced it was not Martin. He would certainly be in a better position to know than Stephen, and he decided not to charge Zimmerman. How does Stephen and Sharpton KNOW the DA was wrong in his judgement? So to me, that is second guessing on the basis of having less evidence. Unless I agree with such second guessing, then my claim to objectivity is an insult to the intelligence of everyone?
I am biased in the direction of facts, but am suspicious of ideologues or demagogues who claim to have incredible facts. I have spent most of my life chasing down claims of fact that turned out to be mythical, or even fictitious.
Since you are convinced that I am unclear about the difference between facts and claims; I’m sure you won’t mind me asking you to name or identify what I have mentioned about the facts, or claims (if you prefer) of the case that you would dispute as being factual.
Meanwhile, I will of course consider it progress, of sorts, that you have acknowledged “that if the voice is that of Martin, then it would seriously undermine the case of self-defense for Zimmerman,” (your words).
I have stipulated that we do not now know whose voice that is, or whose voice (Zimmerman’s or Martin’s) it isn’t. However the very fact that the armed survivor’s claim of self-defense would be seriously undermined if that is not his voice, happens to have been my point, remember?
If the unarmed decedent was indeed screaming and yelling with apparent desperation prior to the gunshots being fired by the armed survivor of the incident, we have criminality.
The outrage was that the unarmed decedent’s life is/was worth finding out—with certainty.
Mr. Schilt, is there a way I could contact you privately?
Also, speaking as one who has had many many conversations on this case over the last few weeks, I attest to the fact that many in the African American community, including myself, feel as though the case was indeed white washed by the police department, and this was before the information came out that Zimmerman's father is a judge. This is something that I have noticed does not sit well with many on this board, but with the same fervor that some have insisted that this case has nothing to do with race I also insist that it does. For me personally, I was gravely disappointed that Zimmerman was not charged with a crime. As Dennis and others pointed out quite well, to be arrested doesn't really mean much. Yet to be charged with the crime indicates that the state feels that their is sufficient evidence to assert criminal liability. Now that he has been charged, I greatly fear for his ability to stand a fair trial in front of an unbiased jury. I don't want him to be so lynched publicly that he doesn't stand a chance of being acquitted when he does, imo, have a possible legal defense.
James,
I disagree strongly with your statements regarding social justice and that African-Americans shouldn't be fighting the battle on their own. First, the concept of "social justice" has no foundation in scripture because charity and social involvement are requirements imposed by God on individuals, not nations. Second, there are details about the case that have become buried by the volume of the protests. The 911 tapes were doctored by NBC and other news outlets to make it seem like Mr. Zimmerman was acting with a racial motive. Also, Trayvon Martin had become involved in using drugs, had been suspended from school several times and was suspected by the police with involvement in several home burglaries in the neighborhood.
If anything, Adventists should be on the forefront of asking the public for calm and reasoned behavior in the face of the calls for mob justice, threats of violence and even vigilante groups putting a price on the head of Mr. Zimmerman.
As Israel as a nation was punished for how the poor (among others) were treated, I am not sure how you can say that charity and social involvement are not required of nations. Surely both come under the Biblical concept of 'justice'?
Kevin,
The topic of "social justice" is too complex for a full discussion here. I suggest you read my article "Social (In)Justice in volume 2 of Adventist Today Magazine from last year.
In a nutshell, the Biblical description of justice is a moral code requiring complete fairness in all business and judicial dealings. It is separate and distinct from God's requirements for individuals to exercise charity and the two are not mixed or confused. But today's concept of "social justice" mixes the two and twists them to justify claims supporting every racial or economic complaint any group my put forward. This then forms a basis for the creation of laws forcing the taking of value and property from those who have and giving to those who do not have. That is not justice, but the definition of theft. It is also used to justify demands by one group over another, typically on the basis of race, seeking the force of law to require the other to submit to their demands. That is not freedom, but slavery.
God's condemnation of Israel for not exercising proper justice or charity was a recognition of how far the individuals had collectively strayed from His commands.
"separate and distinct" in what way?
i'm not flaming you … i sincerely want to know.
i've looked for your article, but it is apparently locked to me.
Hi Charles –
I have no objection at all to you privately contacting me. Check with the moderator.
I can't speak for other commenters, but I certainly would not argue at this event or the response by the local police department has nothing to do with race. I just don't think there is enough information to vigorously press that incendiary conclusion. Prejudice and bigotry are unfortunately alive and well in this country, and they create many divides, most of which have their roots more in ideology and self-interest than in skin color, ethnicity, gender, or wealth. What bothers me is the rush to use this incident as a prism through which American society and its justice institutions should be judged as racist.
The brutal murder of Reginald Denny during the Rodney King riots certainly had everything to do with race, and many would say that the the justice system did not produce the verdicts that were warranted by the evidence. But I'm not aware that Whites took to the street to denounce the verdicts resulting from the ensuing prosecutions of the perpetrators, foment violence against Blacks, or agitate for legal reforms that would forever end racially motivated crimes and verdicts in America. It is the persistent attempts by racial dividers to define a non-Black America, and smear that caricature with a particular interpretation of hazy evidence and isolated tragedies, that many of us find unwarranted and divisive.
I too have been disappointed with many results yielded by the justice systems in our country over the course of my lifetime. But I resist the notion that imperfect justice, endemic to the human condition, means that the institutions themselves, or those with wealth, power, or a different skin color, are at fault. It is usually just people – people who are scared, hurt, and angry, so that they are unable to arise above the biases and prejudices that those emotions generate. Playing on those emotions only reduces the likelihood that justice can do her job.
Not to quibble, but there was no "brutal murder of Reginald Denny during the Rodney King riots…"
Mr. Denny WAS savagely beaten, but he survived that attack. Today, he LIVES in Arizona.
Facts matter.
The media misinformation of this case has been enormous. From the portrayal of Trayvon's 13 y.o. picture to Z booking picture. National agendas drove the case, I suggest, rather than facts specific to this case. I simply want to see fairness done by rule of law. I want to see justice for Treyvon and/or Zimmerman.
It will be interesting to see over the coming weeks if a judge actually let's this case come to trial with only admissable evidence and Florida law being used. Many local defense attorney's doubt it.
Florida is already under suspicion because of the poor handling of this case, and the increase in homicides since the "Stand your Ground" law.
Is it true that Florida allows video cameras in the court room? What a media gift! Personally, like Pat, I simply wanted justice done and until Zimmerman had a chance to talk on record, it could not happen. A grand jury could hear the case and make a decision if it should go to trial.
"Florida is already under suspicion because of…the increase in homicides since the 'Stand your Ground' law."
So tell me, Elaine – is the state of Illinois also under suspicion because the murder rate on the South side of Chicago is epidemic, and Illinois doesn't have a "Stand your Ground" law? You know full well that Florida could have a homicide rate of zero, and you would still oppose the "Stand your Ground" law. In fact, I suspect that in "Elaine's world" the entireity of Red State America is "under suspicion" for various ideological crimes against humanity. Why do you so consistently resort to "correlation equals causation" and "consensus is truth" fallacies when it suits your purposes, and condemn, as feckless rubes, those who use such arguments against you?
Absence of the "Stand your Ground" law would not have prevented the homicide of Trayvon Martin. Only the inability of George Zimmerman, as a presumably generally law abiding citizen, to get a concealed weapon permit would have prevented what occurred. "Stand your Ground" simply provides another layer of protection, above common-law self-defense principles, to those who find themselves confronted with a threat and elect not to do what most reasonable people would do – retreat. "Stand your ground" helps the guilty as well as the innocent, regardless of race.
For what it's worth, I do not like "Stand you Ground." I think it reflects an unhealthy cowboy attitude without really affecting behavior. Traditional principles of self-defense are, to my way of thinking, just and adequate. But let's not kid ourselves. I'm sure Zimmerman was not thinking, when he pulled the trigger, "Great! I can shoot this guy because I come under the umbrella of "Stand your Ground."
Only more stringent gun control laws would have prevented this homicide. And then, in fairness, we have to look at the number of crimes and homicides that have been interrupted or prevented because someone was carrying a gun, and balance the risks and benefits. It is not, as you, Elaine, love to frame your opinions, a self-evident grade school moral equation.
"…until Zimmerman had a chance to talk on the record, [justice] could not happen."???
I'm sorry, Elaine. But you have repeatedly demonstrated in your comments on this story that you have no interest in facts, civil rights, or justice unless they conform with your metanarrative, and advance your ideological biases. Zimmerman has, and always will have, the right to remain silent. It is up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of the victim, accused, or alleged crime. Your statement implies that the burden is on Zimmerman to prove his innocence; that justice does not occur if someone is not prosecuted – or acquitted – because they claim their Fifth Amendment rights. I know you do not believe that. But you are obviously prepared to suspend your instinctive solicitude for criminal suspects in order to join the mob using the Trayvon Martin homicide to fight an ideological proxy war. Your argument that Zimmerman should have been required to wear an ankle bracelet pending investigation was so over-the-top that it would leave even the likes of Al Sharpton slack-jawed.
I'm sure Zimmerman was not thinking, when he pulled the trigger, "Great! I can shoot this guy because I come under the umbrella of "Stand your Ground."
And how, or on what basis, would you know this? How can you be “sure”?
He was, after all, a self-appointed, volunteer neighborhood watch guy, who had called 911 on dozens of previous occasions? He was carrying a registered 9mm. weapon wasn’t he?
We shouldn’t speculate on that which is not in evidence; especially if it not unreasonable to presume that Zimmerman may have been familiar with a potentially applicable law.
Your explanation of the “rationale” (for obvious lack or a better word) behind the idiotic "stand your ground" law is indecipherable. “’Stand your ground’” helps the guilt as well as the innocent, regardless of race”? Who did it help in this case?
What “layer of protection” did it provide to Trayvon Martin who, according to the prosecutorial affidavit (and Zimmerman’s 911 call) was retreating, at one point, from Zimmerman’s vicinity?
I have an admittedly cynical view of these things and I have a cynical theory as to what is happening in this case. My view of the O.J. Simpson case early on was that Simpson was by being "framed" by the LAPD for a crime that he certainly committed. Here I believe that the prosecution is hoping for a pre-trial dismissal of the second degree murder charge by a judge.
This case has long been politically saturated, i.e. totally politicized, on a national scale. A pre-trial dismissal is the best political outcome for the special prosecutor and the governor; and that’s what they’ll get. This is a set up in my view.
I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t believe I’m wrong.
The fact that you don't understand an explanation, Stephen, doesn't mean it is indecipherable. Nor does the fact that you disagree with a legal defense to criminal charges mean that it is idiotic. My observation, that "Stand your Ground" helps the innocent as well as the guilty, is not a "rationale"; it is a fact. A moment's reflection should make it obvious that, when you raise the bar for the prosecution, it will make it more difficult to convict – period. The "Stand your Ground" defense helps all accused individuals, whether innocent or guilty, by providing an extra layer of protection against assault charges.
You're right – As you demagogue the issue, "Innocent until proven guilty" didn't help Trayvon Martin, nor did it provide him with an extra "layer of protection." But let me remind you that, on this website, you are not running for office. You are talking to intelligent people who, if they are not sopranos in your choir (who shall go nameless), are unlikely to be impressed with foolish choruses masquerading as serious argument. Do you know of any civil rights afforded to criminal defendants that help the victim? Would you prefer that criminal defendants only be allowed to invoke legal protections that benefit their victims? Come on, Stephen, have a little pride. Demagoguery on this site only makes one look foolish.
You may fancy yourself a cynic. But your penchant for reading sinister significance into isolated events is more characteristic of conspiracy theorists. With conspiracy theorists, cynicism is just the flip side of gullibility.
Why shouldn't we offer opinions on what has not been introduced as evidence in court? Do we have the authority or responsibility to convict? And why do you deny others the right to do what you do?: "I believe the prosecution is hoping for a pretrial dismissal…by the judge." No speculation there, right?
It would be good to start at the end and then work back, perhaps. There is a difference, of course, between speculating on political maneuverings or the legal process, and on speculating on the facts of a case (that are not known).
I am admittedly speculating on the motivations or lack thereof of the prosecution; and I stipulate that I could be wrong.
You, on the other hand, are quite “sure” that Zimmerman did not have the “stand your ground” defense in mind at some point prior to pulling the trigger.
You may not perceive a difference; then again, since you are an attorney you may well understand what I am saying.
As for the “stand your ground” issue, we are (or were) talking about two different things; thus the misunderstanding, I believe.
You have been talking about the “stand your ground” defense, while I had always been talking about the “stand your ground” law in terms of it being idiotic.
This is why what you were saying was indecipherable to me. I could not (and do not) see how that law in any way provides any help or any protection for anyone in real life. I do see your point in terms of it being a strategic criminal defense.
Elaine,
Increase in homicides in Florida since the passing of the "Stand Your Ground Law?" Police stats in the state do not support a cause-and-effect relationship between the two because the increase in homicides reported by the media were from a gang-related drug war.
States that pass concealed carry and laws similar to "stand your ground" have all shown a considerable drop in homicides, armed robberies and home break-ins because the criminals fear individuals who are able to resist them using deadly force. For example, twenty-some years ago when Colorado enacted their "Make May Day" law (borrowing from the movie "Dirty Harry"), total crime in the state dropped by half in the first two weeks after the law went into effect and homicides dropped by 80%.
Are you seriously suggesting, William, that the criminal element is conversant with “stand your ground” type laws immediately after their passage?
These idiotic laws stupidly encourage vigilante “justice.” Similar “mentality” suggests that we’d all be safer if everyone regularly carried deadly weapons.
Elaine,
The Grand jury is past history. The prosecutor has filed charges. The challenges will be if those charges are admissible when challenged by the defense attorney and the case possibly dismissed pre-trial by a Judge for lack of admissable evidence by the prosecutor and in light of the Fla. "stand your ground" law.
These things remain to be seen. Quite a few local defense attorneys have said they did not expect the case to go to jury. Time will tell.
Stephen wrote:
“This case has long been politically saturated, i.e. totally politicized, on a national scale. A pre-trial dismissal is the best political outcome for the special prosecutor and the governor; and that’s what they’ll get. This is a set up in my view.”
Keep in mind, Stephen, that the most parsimonious interpretation of a pre-trial dismissal is that “activist” political pressure forced the state to press charges (which the prosecutor thought unwinnable for insufficient evidence in the first place), but in the end, all the “activist” horses and all the "activists" men could not produce legal evidence capable of bringing about a conviction. So it is NOT your conspiracy theory that wins in the event of a pre-trial dismissal, but the age old truism that “activist” screaming and hollering are one thing; but producing evidence is another thing entirely.
How do all these activists “know” all these things that the rest of us don’t? How did Reverend Sharpton really “know” that Tawana Brawley was raped by a white man and then smeared with feces when nobody else did? You know the answer. Doesn’t history mean anything?
Dennis,
I have been careful in trying not to speculate about the actual facts of this case; and to comment on and delineate only that which everyone knows.
So, for you to claim that there is knowledge to which activists are privy—or claim to be privy—to which “the rest of us” are not privy, is a red herring; especially since we are discussing this in a semi-private forum.
Surely you would acknowledge that if the voice heard yelling and screaming in apparent desperation was Zimmerman’s, that this would represent “evidence” to substantiate his self defense claim.
Would you agree that if the voice was not Zimmerman’s—which is a possibility—but was Trayvon Martin’s—which is also a possibility, that this would represent “evidence” that the shooting was not self defense?
Stephen,
I like what you have been writing lately about trying not to speculate about the actual facts in this case, as opposed to latching onto accounts and claims that are convenient for supporting what Nathan calls the (paranoid) meta-narrative. To the extent that you can do that, I can distinguish you from the Al Tawana Sharptons and the Elaines, and I have little or no disagreement with you.
You write,
“So, for you to claim that there is knowledge to which activists are privy—or claim to be privy—to which “the rest of us” are not privy, is a red herring; especially since we are discussing this in a semi-private forum.”
Of course I never claimed that. Instead, I asked sarcastically,
“How do all these activists “know” all these things that the rest of us don’t? How did Reverend Sharpton really “know” that Tawana Brawley was raped by a white man and then smeared with feces when nobody else did?”
The fact that Al [Tawana] Sharpton falsely accused Steven Pagones of rape and was later successfully sued by Pagones for defamation of character, should have made my sarcasm obvious, as Sharpton obviously did not really know anything of the kind. He just fell for the Tawana story (I know she is still defending her accusation, but in the light of all the testimony, and evidence, it is beyond ridiculous) because it fit into the meta-narrative. I see the same potential pattern being repeated here, with Al Tawana Sharpton again leading the lunch mob on the basis of the most paranoid interpretations of events. This is not to say that he can’t possibly be right, but given his history of demagoguery, there is good reason to distrust his judgement, and for reasonable people to distance themselves from him.
The question you pose regarding the implications of the voice on the 911 tape being Martin’s or Zimmerman’s is trite. Of course it would constitute evidence against Zimmerman’s claim of self defense (though not necessarily decisive evidence) if it is Martin’s voice, and vice versa if it is Zimmerman’s voice. Nathan, has already admitted that, and probably anyone else would agree.
The trouble with expecting that tape to be some blockbuster revelation that damages Zimmerman, is that this tape has already been presumably heard by the prosecutor who was unwilling to proceed on that basis. So it may not constitute the “slam dunk evidence” that all the lefties assume it is. Now maybe he is a sinister, racist prosecutor who doesn’t want to win a politically correct, slam dunk prosecution of a murder of a black man, as the left is implying, but I am skeptical that he is so stupid that he would torch his career by refusing to prosecute a slam dunk case. Therefore, I am not going to second guess him from this distance. Obviously, you are, or we wouldn’t be having this tortured discussion.
Your sarcastic question about activists knowing things that the rest of us don’t know was certainly an implication that said activists claim to be privy to some information to which the rest of us are not privy.
Why would you then say, “I never claimed that” and deny that you ever made such an implication Dennis? I realize that you were being sarcastic, but you nonetheless raised a red herring.
Maybe sarcasm isn’t conducive to effective communication.
Had you also forgotten that you had previously said this?: “But I have heard conflicting reports on that, and assume that the DA was not convinced that it was Martin, or was convinced it was not Martin. He would certainly be in a better position to know than Stephen, and he decided not to charge Zimmerman. How does Stephen and Sharpton KNOW the DA was wrong in his judgement? So to me, that is second guessing on the basis of having less evidence. Unless I agree with such second guessing, then my claim to objectivity is an insult to the intelligence of everyone?”
After acknowledging that if “the voice” was not Zimmerman’s that this would undermine his self-defense claim, you immediately started assuming what the DA was not convinced of; or of what he was convinced. Then you claim that Sharpton and I “KNOW” that the DA was wrong for having concluded something that YOU had assumed he had considered (after hearing “conflicting reports,” no less)! Then you claim that I am second guessing something that neither of us have any knowledge was “first guessed” in the first place!
To be candid, it makes no difference to me whether you distinguish me from Sharpton and/or Elaine; or if you confuse me with either, or both, of them.
When and if you ever isolate or identify specific comments about this case that are, or have been irresponsible—by Sharpton or anyone else—I will be happy to address them; and hopefully even concur.
If the voice heard yelling and screaming in apparent desperation immediately prior to the gunshots was Trayvon’s—or was not Zimmerman’s—and that would not, in your view, necessarily constitute decisive evidence against his self-defense claim, then apparently nothing would. I will hereby ignore my own advice: Surprise, surprise.
As for the local prosecutor; again, had it not been for the activism and publicity, this case would have been closed. I doubt that he’d have lost his job for not prosecuting a self-defense claim; especially one that wasn’t particularly high profile—and in a “stand your ground” environment.
Stephen,
You write, “Why would you then say, “I never claimed that” and deny that you ever made such an implication Dennis? I realize that you were being sarcastic, but you nonetheless raised a red herring.”
The answer is very simple, Stephen. Claiming and implying are two different words with two different meanings. Don’t state as a fact that I “claimed” something, if you mean that I only “implied” it. Denying a “claim” is not the same as denying implying. There is a reason for the distinction, so don’t claim that the two words mean exactly the same thing. Write and think clearly and accurately.
Secondly, I did NOT introduce a “red herring” (“A Red Herring is a Noun meaning any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue”) because the pseudo-knowledge of the demagogic left (as epitomized by Sharpton) is the very issue I am challenging here.
Thirdly, what does the fact that I stated the basis for my agnosticism have to do with anything we are arguing about? All of my default assumptions are common sense, but not absolute. If I assume a prosecutor has looked at the available evidence and decides not to prosecute, then I am entitled to assume, lacking any evidence to the contrary, that he didn’t think he had a good enough chance to win, and so it would look bad on his record. I have a right to assume, barring evidence to the contrary, that he would not pass up a chance to win an easy prosecution, and endanger his career just to act out on his racial prejudice, assuming he had some. Was there any evidence produced that he was that stupid, or virulently racist? If there was, then I missed it.
So why would you make all those negative, even dehumanizing assumptions about the prosecutor so as to completely deny him the benefit of the doubt as a human, and a competent prosecutor who has no death wish? I assume it is your paranoia, because you provide me with no other plausible rationale. I am not as paranoid as you are, and so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecutor, whereas you are not. Maybe you are right, but how to you know all that about him?
Until you produce that evidence justifying your dehumanizing of the prosecutor, I will regard your stance as paranoid. Your paranoid presuppositions makes you think you know things that are not actually known, such as that there would not be any investigation of the Martin case that would turn up anything contrary to what the prosecutor initially concluded. (If any subsequent investigation confirms the prosecutor’s judgement, then it is not a legal matter, but a journalistic one.)
Finally, in contrast to my qualifying phrase, “not necessarily,” you presuppose that all the prosecution needs to win the case is to show that it was not Zimmerman on that 911 tape, no matter what is said or how it is said? (I haven’t heard the contents yet, so how could I be sure exactly how powerful that bit of evidence would be? Yet I am required to be absolutely certain of its all sufficiency?) So the trial will take 10-20 minutes to play the tape, show it is not Zimmerman and then rest? How in the investigative judgement do you know that with certainty?? I only wish I had your omniscience! Good luck on being a Sharpton apologist.
When we start making tortured distinctions between saying something and implying the same thing; or deny that we claimed what we admit having implied, it’s time to quit.
Because I don’t know if the prosecutor made a judgment on the yelling and screaming voice, I have now dehumanized him?
Yep, it is clearly time to quit.
Stephen – I haven't read the affidavit of probable cause. But it is my understanding that the affidavit needs to reference each allegation with evidentiary support. From reports I have heard, the affidavit has no evidentiary reference for the the statement that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, and it has no reference for the assertion that Martin was not acting "suspiciously." Therefore, a reasonable person has to conclude – particularly if, like you, he doesn't trust law enforcement – that these unsourced assertions should be viewed with skepticism. Or are you willing to suspend your distrust for law enforcement and the justice system when they become tools to advance causes and agendas that you believe in? If there was credible evidence that this homicide was racially motivated, don't you think that the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, would be all over it?
You assert that, without the racial flame-throwers and their media enablers, this case would never have been put on the path to justice. I hope you are wrong. I, perhaps naively, hope that fear and intimidation have not influenced the prosecution of this case. I assume at this point that the prosecutors have alleged second degree murder in the good faith belief that the evidence supports that charge.
But I would be curious to know what steps the agitators took before attacking the system. Do you know whether the activists sought a more careful examination of the evidence before taking to the streets? Did they privately go to the D.A. or to the State Attorney General to ask that a more thorough investigation occur before charging to the microphones and cameras to incite the mobs? The response in the Martin case was immediate and explosive. I don't know exactly what triggered what appeared to be an orchestrated response. But I seriously doubt that Al Sharpton or any other Black leaders made any attempts to work quietly behind the scenes for a higher level of review before hurling rhetorical molotov cocktails. So I don't know what your basis is for saying that Zimmerman would never have been charged and arrested but for the mob. And if you are correct, how do you feel about mob justice prevailing?
If you and the activists are so confident that this was a racially motivated crime, why isn't someone ripping into Eric Holder and Obama's Department of Justice, demanding that federal charges be filed against Zimmerman for violation of Trayvon's civil rights? Why pick on the Sanford, Fla. P.D. when you can go after the D.O.J. and make this into a federal case?
It is amazing…well, not really amazing, perhaps intriguing, how we are contemporaries in the same nation, speak and write the same language, are members of the same basic faith community, yet live in parallel universes.
I understand your universe because I have had to navigate through it; in elementary school, secondary school, graduate school, business and corporate, social and cultural life, and employment.
It is painfully evident, and perhaps even lamentable, that you have not done much of any of this in my universe.
If you had, you would realize that private pleas for further review in a case like this may not have resulted in a second degree murder charge. (I hope you appreciate the purposeful understatement.) You have been a prosecutor and certainly have a feel for this, one would think.
If you had, you would know that Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Fred Shuttlesworth, and Andrew Young, W.W. Fordham, and countless other “agitators” were considered “racial flame-throwers” and/or trouble makers as well.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall there being any violence, or threats, of violence, or arrests, or anything of the kind in any of the protests or demonstrations. That is unlike any mob of which I have ever heard.
I’m sure you don’t suspect the governor of Florida of succumbing to the alleged threats of the New Black Panther Party. Perhaps you don’t even perceive a difference.
It has been apparent for some time now that this is actually more about Al Sharpton for you and Dennis than about anything else.
That certainly is not my problem; nor is it my concern.
As for making a federal case of this, I would say first things first; but be careful what you ask for.
Typographical correction:
…any violence, or threats of violence, or arrests, or anything of the…
We don't really inhabit parallel universes, Stephen – just different worlds – worlds no more different than the worlds inhabited by you and President Obama. You presume that you know my world, implying, without explicitly stating, that I do not understand yours. But you know nothing of the world I have had to navigate. You know that I am White, male, upper-middle class, and politically conservative. And that is all you need to know in order to place me in a world where people are defined and regulated for political power and advantage according to race, gender, ethnicity, and wealth. My story, and the path I have traveled, does not matter to you, because it is easier for you to deal with me as a label – as "them."
Nor do you see that the political/cultural world I must navigate has become, in many ways, the world of your preference – a nanny state where people are defined and regulated according to race, gender, ethnicity and wealth. I suspect you see me as having been brainwashed by an oppressor culture into believing in American exceptionalism, believing that America is probably the least racist society in the history of mankind, and believing that Lady Justice is more just with a blindfold on than when she peeks to look at skin color, gender, or wealth.
I understand well the world of false dualities and political labels. That world is by its nature a world of shrinking resources, robust expectations, and false hopes. It is characterized by strife and perpetual warfare, divide and conquer. But I refuse to succomb to the siren calls of false choices, sterile morality, and empty promises offered by that world. I try to reserve my heart, mind and spiritual passion for a world where "there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all." I take great comfort, Stephen, that the world about which we differ will soon pass away, but that the greater world in which we are firmly united as brothers in Christ is eternal.
Well, your last sentence is certainly something with which I am in wholehearted agreement!
That should be the take-away from this.
As you can imagine, I could say much more; but the bottom line is that we agree on your bottom line.
As I was shaving this morning (4/23) at 6:00 a.m., Royal Oakes, the legal analyst for KFWB was reporting on the release of Geroge Zimmerman. He said, “He doesn’t have much of a criminal record. He was arrested several times, but was never charged.”
While this doesn’t prove that one cannot be arrested unless one is charged, it does prove that Royal Oakes, the legal analyst on KFWB, and ABC news, (partner in the LA based firm, Barger and Wolen) who regularly does commentary on legal matters, obviously thinks that no change is required for there to be an arrest, and that an arrest without being charged does constitute “something” of a criminal record, still constitutes an arrest, or he would not have said he does not have “much of a criminal record," despite having no arrests.
I have already provided a definition of “arrest” from a lawyer website several times. Their definition does NOT require a legal charge as a necessary element of an arrest. I have already shown that for statistical purposes, it would make sense that arrests be recorded separately from criminal charges. Despite all the attempts to rationalize Estrich and the screeching left complaining Zimmerman was NEVER ARRESTED, nobody has provided any documentation for the legitimacy of such a claim.
The notion that it is merely semantics and doesn’t matter whether the left’s claim is technically correct or not, to me, is another concession to the lynch mob. Here is why.
The left needs to portray this as a gross miscarriage of justice on its face. So they NEED to make the police handling of the Martin-Zimmerman case sound outrageous. It is outrageous only if they can claim Zimmerman was “not even arrested!” for shooting a black man. Even I thought that was really strange and was initially willing to concede that it didn’t sound right that Zimmerman was not even arrested after this incident.
Then, when I saw him in handcuffs at the police station, and learned that he had been interrogated, I thought
"What the devil?? According to the reports I heard, I thought he wasn’t even arrested!! I have been had again by the demagogic left and the pandering media!!”
The fact that this claim “Not even arrested” IS IMPORTANT is proven by how hard this claim is being defended. For it does not sound sexy or outrageous if the story had been reported accurately as
“Zimmerman was arrested on the spot and brought in for questioning at the police station for several hours, but was finally released without being charged.”
No, no, that would sound far too reasonable of law enforcement. That does not resonate with the meta-narrative of victimhood or rally the mob. Reasonable people would hardly feel outraged by that, so the mob has to scream, “Zimmerman was not even arrested!!!” The media has been pandering to that mob ever since then.
Zimmerman may be deservedly convicted. But he WAS arrested for the incident, and to deny that was tantamount to yelling “Fire!!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire.
If somebody wants to contest the notion that there WAS an arrest of Zimmerman, then I suggest they NOT begin with, “I feel.” There has been too much “feeling” (or feeling disguised as thinking) and not enough facts already. Facts please.
Sorry for the typo:
"…obviously thinks that no charge is required for there to be an arrest…"
So, to be clear—as if it makes a difference—whenever someone is taken into police custody, they have in fact been arrested by the police; and that though Zimmerman had in fact been officially arrested, he was not charged with anything.
Now had the Sanford PD actually considered that they had indeed arrested Zimmerman; couldn’t they have simply said so, and in so doing at least clarified the nomenclature?
You may find this hard to believe, but that would not have changed anything for those who believe that Zimmerman, who had been eagerly looking for trouble, criminally, stupidly and tragically (self-)fulfilled his own prophecy.
Well guys – I could be wrong. But I don't think Zimmerman was arrested by the Sanford P.D. If so, what was he arrested for? There should be a record of that somewhere. There should be a booking photo. As I said before, a person can be taken into custody and held for questioning without being arrested for or charged with a crime. From everything I have heard, I believe that Zimmerman was taken into custody for questioning only. I do not believe that the mug shot we have seen of him on T.V. is a booking photo. The Sanford P.D. concluded that they lacked probable cause to arrest him and present evidence to the D.A. that would result in criminal charges. So they released him. As I said, I could be wrong. But my explanation would reconcile the seeming discrepancy between Zimmerman having been initially taken into custody and the claims that he was not arrested. Both are accurate statements.
Careful now Brother; we sure don’t want to have you accused of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater now do we?
That mug shot we see of Zimmerman was from a previous “arrest,” I understand.
I will go with the evidence, which I don't think is in yet.
"That mug shot we see of Zimmerman was from a previous “arrest,” I understand."
But assuming Royal Oakes is accurate, he has never been charged with a crime. So how could he have a mug shot, if mug shots are only taken upon being charged?
"If so, what was he arrested for? There should be a record of that somewhere. There should be a booking photo."
Is it possible that he was initially arrested on suspicioun of murder? I don't know; I haven't seen the police report of the officer that took him in. Has anyone reported definitively on that? Are you implying there is no record anywhere? I wouldn't know; just asking. Assuming Royal Oakes looked up the records from a reliable source, he was able to get Zimmerman's previous arrest records that resulted in no charges. So those records were somehwhere, though maybe not from the police.
This shouldn't be as difficult a question to answer as "Is there a personal God?" Yet it seems like it.
I’m don’t know about from where this Royal Oakes gets his or her information; and I can’t necessarily vouch for the following information, but it seems that Zimmerman had previously been charged with “CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” and with “CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE” according to records from the Orange County Clerk of Courts (Court Records Search) that I found on http://www.policeleak.com/post/19671656352/george-michael-zimmermans-criminal-record. 2005-MM-010436-A-O and 2006-TR-219362-A-O respectively.
This may explain the old mug shot.
An excellent find, Stephen!
It goes to show how much false information is out there. Finally, some new evidence! Besides providing that source, your comments were also properly qualified. Although this website seems highly credible (but not infallible), it seem ambiguous in that it doesn’t even seem to indicate what the outcome of those cases (2005-CF-009525-A-O, and 2005-MM-010436-A-O ) were, which seems pretty important.
If Royal Oakes got his information from here, he presumably would not have said Zimmerman was not charged. So he must have used a secondary source. But he has good company in making this claim; a lot of other seemingly reputable news reports are claiming the same thing (that Zimmerman was not criminally charged with anything).
(See http://www.northmobilepost.com/tag/how-much-was-george-zimmermans-bond/)
Moral of the story: Never believe any scholars, lawyers or news agencies. To paraphrase a famous Texas poker player, Amarillo Slim, "In God We Trust. Everybody else has to put up DOCUMENTATION!" Of course, that is my motto anyway.
Pending the discovery of more information to the contrary, this appears to resolve the contradiction I once saw between Zimmerman NOT being arrested in the Martin case, and his being "arrested" previously despite "not being charged" in his previous arrests. Basically, everybody who claimed that Zimmerman was arrested previously for other incidents, despite NOT being charged, apparently had their facts wrong. When the facts change, then my opinion changes.
However, this does not prove Zimmerman was NOT arrested in the Martin case, because being hauled off to the police station with your hands handcuffed, still seems to meet the any common sense definition of an arrest, as well as meet the definition of the word according to the legal website I have produced.
Based upon the information provided, it appears to me that Zimmerman was arrested in the past, but not "charged" with any crime. "Charge" is a term of art in the justice system. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, it is the process of the prosecuting attorney filing a criminal complaint with the court, setting forth criminal charges that he/she intends to prove. Some people use the term "charged" to describe a person being arrested and taken into custody for a crime. Those who use it in the technical sense correctly say that Zimmerman was never charged; those who attach broader meaning to the term correctly argue that Zimmerman was charged. The pettifoggery clears if the definition of "charged" is agreed upon.
Probably George Zimmerman was arrested in the past for "contempt of cop". Of course there is no such criminal offense. It is a tongue-in-cheek phrase to describe belligerent, in-your-face behavior by someone who has been confronted by a police officer for questioning, and feels like he is being hassled or profiled without good reason. When the officer is unable to calm the person down and get his cooperation with a carrot and stick approach, he may decide to arrest the person for resisting a peace officer, disturbing the peace, public intoxication, or some other minor offense. He will say, "Sir, I'm placing you under arrest for___________. Turn around and put your hands behind your back." The officer will then take the subject to headquarters for booking, take a mug shot, and probably cite release him after briefly putting him in holding cell for "educational" purposes. The arrestee will then have to come to court for arraignment on the citation in 30 days.
A police report is prepared and sent to the prosecuting attorney for review, to see if the facts support criminal charges. Of course the D.A. is not looking at the case from a "probable cause" perspective, but from a proof perspective. He/she wants to know whether the evidence is sufficient to persuade 12 jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that the arrestee is guilty of behavior clearly proscribed by the penal code. It is not sufficient that the person simply be guilty of moral wrongdoing or poor judgment.
In "contempt of cop" cases, without any underlying criminal offense to charge, sketchy probable cause for the detention, and limited resources, the D.A. will decline to file charges. So when the arrestee comes to court 30 days later, he will be told that no charges have been filed and he is free to go. Of course if the arrestee fails to appear, as often occurs, the D.A. will then file a different criminal charge, which will be much easier to prove – "Failure to appear after release on a written promise to appear."
The cop knew that no charges would probably be filed when he arrested the suspect. But the point was nevertheless made. The arrestee has had to go through a pretty unpleasant experience. Was it worth it? He will probably think twice before hassling a cop again, even if he thinks the cop is in the wrong. Furthermore, he now has an arrest record. If a law enforcement officer stops him in the future, the first thing the officer will do is run a records check to find out who he is dealing with. He'll see a previous arrest for resisting a peace officer, and adapt his handling of the situation accordingly.
A person can only get that arrest record expunged if he can show that there was no probable cause for the arrest or that he was factually innocent of the charge he was arrested for. Zimmerman's prior arrest record suggests that he may have a confrontational personality. The known behavior in this case certainly suggests a vigilante mindset.
Had I been in Zimmerman's situation, the last thing I would have done is to confront a person that I suspected was up to no good. On the other hand, had I been in Trayvon Martin's shoes, Zimmerman would have had to shoot me in the back, because I would have been running away. There may have been some reciprocal profiling going on here, where each felt the other was invading his space/territory. Zimmerman, feeling that Martin was up to no good, chose to pursue and confront; Martin, feeling that Zimmerman was unreasonably invading his space, chose to stand his ground and physically engage. When the fight response kicks in, bad stuff happens, especially if one or both individuals are armed.
If there is a lesson to be learned for Christians, it is the Christian equivalent of the law of gravity: Behaviors and responses motivated by self-protective grievance and indignation always produce evil.
Nathan,
Thanks for that patient “clarification.”
So, regarding the Martin case, Zimmerman was not arrested because was not charged, (despite the fact that he was hauled off to the police station in handcuffs) but so far as his criminal history, he was arrested, but not charged, despite the fact that the Orange County data base for criminal records states explicitly that he was “charged” with felonies twice. The reason why he can be said to have been arrested and charged, or not arrested and not charged, or arrested but not charged is that “arrested” and “charged”can mean one thing or its exact opposite depending on what side of the bed we get up on that day. Did I get that right?
This reminds me of students in the first grade having a competition to see who is the best and everybody gets a prize for being the winner in their own way. I didn’t know that the legal language worked the same way. I must apologize for thinking that legal words meant something, as opposed to anything. If that is the way things are, then I will accept it, …but only after I vomit in the sink.
Close, but not quite. The reason Zimmerman was not arrested in the Martin case is because the police did not book him for any criminal offense. Detaining a person for questioning is not an arrest. An arrest is what the police do. Charging is what the prosecuting attorney does. If the Orange County data base says he was "charged" with felonies, I would assume that they are using the word "charged" in a sense that is interchangeable with "arrest". It was my impression from what Stephn said that the Orange County records only indicated an arrest. It does seem that within the state the justice system would be consistent in their use of terminology.
I can confidently say that the reason some say he was not arrested in the Trayvon Martin case initially is that when the police took him into custody for questioning, they did not book him for any criminal offense.
Nathan writes,
"It was my impression from what Stephn said that the Orange County records only indicated an arrest."
Now, wait a minute! I assumed you had based your opinion on looking at the source Stephen provided, rather than going by how Stephen interpreted it. I went to that website and looked at it, so I don't need Stephen's interpretation or characterization. That website provides a table with different columns:
Now, look at this Orange County table and tell me with a straight face that "…the Orange County records only indicated an arrest." That is not what I see. Tell me my eyes are lying to me.
Oops! The columns were intact until I posted it and then they all got squished together and disappeared into one big mess. There were originally 6 columns. The column on the far right was "Charges." And under that column was first listed "CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE" for case # 2005-MM-010436-A-O.
The second charge was "CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE" in case #
2005-DR-012980-O.
If there are 2 charges listed under the column, "Charges," then in what world do you say, "oh, according to the legal records of Orange County, Florida, there were no criminial charges ever recorded against Zimmerman."
An unofficial, self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who just happens to be armed with a 9mm, and who had previously called 911 dozens of times, and is sitting alone in his vehicle (during the NBA All-Star game) is, by definition, looking for trouble.
If that is in doubt, then actually getting out of the vehicle to follow a ‘suspicious looking’ guy should certainly qualify.
As to your questions about the media use of photos, I would suggest that had Trayvon shot Zimmerman, and had Trayvon reached majority age status, and there was a mug shot available from a previous arrest (or detention), the media would certainly have used the mug shot and Zimmerman’s photo would have been his professional image. Such is the nature of the beast.
Stephen writes:
"An unofficial, self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who just happens to be armed with a 9mm, and who had previously called 911 dozens of times, and is sitting alone in his vehicle (during the NBA All-Star game) is, by definition, looking for trouble."
What is wrong with volunteering for a neighborhood watch in a burglary infested neighborhood, and what is a "neighborhood watch" guy supposed to do if not have the mindset of " looking for trouble"?
Sorry, Stephen, you are condemning virtues here (at least in my book). I want people like that in my neighborhood, and I think most other people would as well.
Stephen also writes:
If that is in doubt, then actually getting out of the vehicle to follow a ‘suspicious looking’ guy should certainly qualify.
People who run to accident scenes or fires are also "looking for trouble," and if they choose to get involved in a rescue attempt in which they risk their lives, that is also risky behavior, but not to be condemned morally as you seem to be doing. The question is whether he crossed the line and became an aggressor in shooting Martin. We don’t know at this point, because we don’t have all the facts.
There will apparently be a trial to settle that question. In the meantime, can we please avoid condemning Zimmerman before those facts are in and fully cross examined?
My answer to your last question is, “No!” Not a chance, as far as I’m concerned; as long as people speculate things such as “Perhaps the one looking for trouble was not the one left standing” and other such nonsense—no way.
Tell you what, you defend the reputation of the guy without whose “poor judgment,” breach of proper procedure and protocol this tragedy would never have taken place, and I’ll defend the reputation of the dead teenager who was minding his own business.
Do you know that that was what he was doing? Surely everything that can be said – and speculated – on this issue has been? Why not wait for the trial and then discuss that then?
(Sigh)
"…I’ll defend the reputation of the dead teenager who was minding his own business."
Right. You just know Martin "was minding his own business."
We know that he was in a community in which he was residing. We know that he had recently been to the store to buy Skittles and ice tea. We know that he had no police record at all and had never previously been arrested (or ‘detained’) by the police for anything. We know that he was unarmed and on foot. We know that he was not committing a crime when he was spotted by Zimmerman. We know that he walked away from Zimmerman in the direction of his domicile after the two made initial eye contact. We know that he was on the phone to a girl friend while being pursued.
Yeah, it is eminently reasonable to say that he was minding his own business.
He’s already dead. Why besmirch his reputation; particularly by nothing more than insidious innuendo?
And what is the innuendo? That he may not have been minding his business, but may have been up to something.
Good points, Stephen. But most reasonably objective folks would wonder why you don't apply the same standard when it comes to incendiary charges that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin – accusations which go way beyond insidious innuendo, to the point where the accusers brand anyone who urges caution and restraint as racist, or at least racially insensitive.
Nathan this is tough, because I have been finding myself in agreement with what you have had to say here lately.
Your post below starting, “Based upon the information provided, it appears to me that Zimmerman was arrested in the past, but not ‘charged’ with any crime,” resonated totally.
I agree with the prosecution and with the initial lead homicide investigator who believed from the beginning (according to the mother of one of the 911 callers who was interviewed by him—and who has gone on camera to this effect) that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon; precipitating all of this.
Zimmerman lives to protect his own reputation (as do the Dennis’s of the world). Trayvon Martin was not so fortunate; and I will not allow him to be profiled again in death in this forum without responding to it, simple as that.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Stephen. I certainly agree that Martin was profiled by Zimmerman. I just don't know what role race played in the profiling. The "profile" initially given by Zimmerman to the 911 operator did not include race. That was elicited by questioning from the 911 operator. So it seems reasonable to suspect that behavior, apparent youth, and dress may have been more primary components of the profile than race. A recording editor at NBC news obviously saw it that way. Otherwise, why doctor the tape to create the impression of invidious racial profiling?
As I pointed out earlier, had Martin been wearing a dress shirt and tie, and carrying a Bible, the profile would have been quite different. Had he been wearing a basketball uniform and carrying a basketball, the profile would have been different. Had he been wearing jogging shorts and running, the profile would have been different. Looking at it another way, had he looked Hispanic, been wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and appeared not to have a clear destination, don't you think Zimmerman may have been suspicious and acted just as aggressively and imprudently on those suspicions?
All the things "we know" about Martin, Zimmerman did not know. Had he known that information, I tend to think the incident would not have occurred. My primary concern is to defend the dispassionate application of the rule of law. And I agree with you that we do not do that cause a favor when we use the same type of stereotyping and speculation to create a cloud of suspicion around Martin that has been used to try and convict Zimmerman in the minds of the public.
Now I realize full well that Zimmerman's testimony will be self-serving; that he can make it appear that Martin was loitering and up to no good; and because Martin is dead, there will be scant circumstantial evidence to refute what Zimmerman says. But the jury will be instructed that if there are two explanations of the evidence, one of which points to guilt, and the other of which points to innocence, they must adopt the explanation that points to innocence and reject the one that points to guilt. The jury is precluded by law from bringing presuppositional racial filters to the courtroom. So they cannot assume, because racism and racial profiling exist, that they played a role in Zimmerman's actions, absent affirmative evidence to permit such a conclusion.
This makes it tough for the prosecution and often terribly bitter for the victim's family – especially when the evidence is strong, but still leaves room for reasonable doubt in the minds of one or more jurors. But thousands of factually guilty people go free every year because evidence is excluded and the burden of proof is daunting. An even greater injustice occurs when we impose ex post facto justice, and decide that, in a given case, we need to suspend the rules of law and evidence in order to achieve racial justice.
When you take into account all that is coming forth, it appears that the racial profiling could have, and most likely took place due to a host of circumtances prior to the confrontation and shooting. Which is not to say that Zimmerman had it out for "black" folks in general, but under the particualar social-economic factors in place in his gated community, it can be easily concluded that there was a specific profiling element at work.
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
Isn't there a convenience store receipt with a date time stamp and items of purchase related to what Trayvon was doing, drink (non alcoholic) and candy? Isn't there a phone conversation that transpired stating he was being "followed" with date and time stamp? If someone is following me, are they following me in their self defense? This case is a pure tragedy, to the depth of soul. It did not have to happen. When will we even here, even now … stand shoulder to shoulder and promote the race of the blood that died for us all. That is the only solution ultimately and you may say I am naive. Yes. I want to be naive. I want to believe that Jesus died for every one. That seeing through His eyes transparent of race, will solidify us into heavenly race.
Timo,
The vocal minority challenges the majority legal system that, in our (minority) view, historically values black on black killing as MORE important than white on black killings.
Is there a history in the U.S. of unpunished black lynchings of white people? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
Has there been a spate of blacks in positions of authority abusing whites — and not being tried for it? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/the-abner-louima-case-10-years-later/
Let's not compound our diversions with revisionism.
We can talk about interracial (black on white) or intra-racial crime all day long. It’s another subject. It has nothing to do with this case or the facts of this case or the dynamics surrounding this case; thus is a red herring.
The issue here and now is profiling and whether the justice system will add insult to injury by permitting the profiler (Zimmerman) to get away with (second-degree) murder. (That is certainly how I see it.) The issue had been whether the profiler would even be arrested and properly charged.
As to whether the profiling was racial profiling; how can it not have been? Profiling is based on someone’s appearance as juxtaposed with those who have been perpetrators. While Zimmerman did not volunteer the race of Zimmerman to the dispatcher, he certainly noticed what he (thought he?) saw, and subsequently reaffirmed it (voluntarily) while in pursuit.
If we can see each other, we always notice—and note—an apparent ethnicity; if ever we are actually close enough.
One would think had Trayvon been dressed in a suit and tie he may not have looked as suspicious to Zimmerman; but he wasn’t, which his prerogative was—but wasn’t; because now he is dead.
The so-called "Black gangsta thug wannbe" was walking, unarmed, down a street in America, that he had EVERY RIGHT to walk, dressed like . . . a teen-ager. He was suspected, chased, and killed for doing so.
Zimmerman was/is not a cop. What test was it that Trayvon was obliged to "pass?" Trayvon "deserved to die" for defending himself against an armed civilian who was persuing him?
And they wonder why we have "Regional Conferences."
Hi Preston, I haven't heard anyone characterize Trayvon Martin quite so colorfully. Have you? Of the commenters on this story, which ones, if any, do you think see Trayvon that way? I'm not aware of evidence that Zimmerman "chased" Trayvon. Nor am I aware of anyone commenting on this story who thinks that Trayvon deserved to die. Are you? Suppose Zimmerman (whom we all agree should not have pursued Martin) came face to face with Martin, and demanded to know what Martin was doing. And suppose Martin, not knowing that Zimmerman was armed, angrily told Zimmerman in no uncertain terms to get lost. Neither would yield, and a physical confrontation ensued, which Martin was decisively winning. Zimmerman then reached into his pocket, pulled out his gun, and shot Martin. Is that inherently implausible, based upon what we know of the evidence?
Do you know, Preston, who initiated the physical altercation by striking the first blow or engaging in the first shove? I don't. Is that irrelevant? If Martin had politely yielded to the questions that Zimmerman had no right to ask, told Zimmerman why he was there and where he was going, do you think he would be dead? And no, the possibility that he could have made better choices does not mean he deserved to die.
Both of them had every legal right to be where they were, doing what they were doing, up to the time that the physical altercation began. Even if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin, it was not illegal, and it doesn't deprive Zimmerman of his legal defenses, does it? Or do you think it should? Isn't it a bit preposterous to assume that Zimmerman, who, to our knowledge, had not pulled his gun previously in patrolling the neighborhood, simply decided to chase Martin down and kill him? That doesn't make sense. Some angry escalating confrontation occurred once Zimmerman made contact with Martin that resulted in a physical altercation.
We don't know who initiated the physical altercation that apparently preceded the shooting. But the imprudence of previous conduct does not suspend the right of either man to defend himself from a physical assault. The reasonableness of the force used is very much an issue. Whether Zimmerman reasonably believed himself to be in danger of the kind of injury which would justify the use of deadly force will presumably be decided by a jury. Is that so outrageous?
Preston, I am caucasian, mother of four, and for the most part … I am in empathy of the positions you have taken here … This tragedy is horrific. I appreciate that you are willing to bare your soul here, and stand up for this deceased young man's character when he cannot speak for himself. You are willing to take hits for someone who has no voice. I totally respect you for coming so forward in this discussion, as it has to be a very difficult thing to do. My one concern that you state here … I do not wish for Regional Conferences … when I was 21, I belonged to an ALL Nations Church, in Michigan. There were 65 nationalities represented … It was the most beautiful worship and church related spiritual experience I have known. When I visit the Sharon church, in my home city … I am captivated and stunned by the warmth and I think that God must be of much darker skin than me … the worship and enthusiasm for God experienced by sharing worship with nations brings me to my knees … I wish all churches were led in worship by people with skin much darker than me … It is as if they know God personally … there is no death in their worship, they are completely alive … as I want to be … I wish for a spiritual awakening that will merge our hearts in purpose for the gospel … that we can some how bring about change in our own homes of how we treat others so that our children will go out and treat others with dignity … so our schools and eventually our nation will go out and treat others with dignity.
Nathan,
You may have missed "Hansen's" colorful characterization of Trayvon immediately above my last post. It is colorful, to say the very least. It is to that post that I responded.
I use the word "chased" interchangably (here) with "pursued." The difference, if any, seems not to matter here. Zimmerman caught up to Trayvon (after a "purposeful pursuit," shall we say?). After being told by authorities not to do so (and breaking all Neighborhood Watch conventions) , Zimmerman sought to confront Trayvon — who had no knowledge that he was being watched, much less pursued. Trayvon was, by definition, on the defensive — even if he was "winning" the fight (which no one knows) before, again – while unarmed, being shot, dead.
My issue is not what Zimmerman's legal defenses are. This is America. He should be deprived of no legal defense. However, the issue and what Trayvon's parents demanded and what most minorities wanted was a trial for a killing made under questionable circumstances.
So, do we know who initiated the physical confrontation (in the literal sense): yes we do — the pursuer. Who struck the first blow is still the question, though not definitive of guilt (on either side), but is more easily explained if it was Trayvon – defending himself from the pursuer. Racial profiling may reveal state of mind — including presumed danger (which seems obvious, to me, by the armed pursuit itself).
Why does an American, breaking no law, have to explain to another civilian where he is going? Is it assumed that a Black person must account for his existence? To an innocent person, the question, itself, coming from a gun-toting citizen in pursuit, can reasonably to interpreted as a threat.
Turn the tables, if you will. A preppy white kid (with no criminal record) walking through Harlem and assumed to be a stranger in the community, is confronted by a dark-skinned Puerto Rican gun-toting guy who doesn't neccessarily announce he's with the Neighborhood Watch. The preppy kid white ends up dead from the gun of the Harlem Neighborhood Watch guy. The Harlem Neighborhood Watch guy, well known to the local precinct, is released by the local cops.
Would the preppy white kid's parents and others demand an comprehensive review? Would attempts to frame the preppy white kid as "probably in Harlem looking for drugs" or something amiss seem cruel and unseemly? Would the assumption that the preppy white kid — who was being pursued, started the fight seem to be a stretch? Would requests for a trial and an investigation of the police seem unreasonable?
Now we welcome—and we certainly do—the defenders, or apologists, or explainers of the Rodney King beating of all things!
Do we have any “birthers” out there? (I should fear for what I ask.)
Timo,
My last statement re: Regional Conferences has nothing at all to do with "media hype." It is in direct response to Hansen's characterizations of Trayvon as a "the Black gangsta, thug wannabe" (do we also assume that those comments had no media influence enbedded in them?), and assumption that, if Trayvon went for the gun (though he was the one being pursued), he deserved to die. As the (stepdad) of young men who, on a given day — wearing the "right" hoodie) could pass for Trayvon, those are not inconsequential or statements.
The passive judgment you pass on Trayvon speaks loudly. Do you have ANY evidence that he was NOT an innocent boy out for a stroll? Is the fact that Trayvon matured past the point of his lastest portrait picture somehow threatening? What is the source of the assumed evil Trayvon was up to, Skittles and all?
If you listen to the words preceding my conclusion, you might hear why I said what I did. Regional conferences are a fact. They exist now. They exist for a reason some claim not to understand. One reason they exist is the belief by blacks that many white people (Adventists, in particular) can not or will not consider another point of view — and assume that their (white) point of view is, by nature, the legimate one. Many of the points of view offered on this blog are callous, mean-spirited, and worse. That fact that my comment is not considered on its possible merit, but is dismissed as xenophobic rhetoric speaks of the lack of introspection that allows Regional Conference to persist — with strong support.
You seem not to notice.
– The assumption that a black man must answer, "without attitude" to an unidentified civilian passes without a thought.
– The assumption that Trayvon, who had no criminal record, was up to no good passes without inspection. I could go on, but I suspect, instead of listening, the work will be spent on justifying unevidenced positions.
I tender no justification for widening the racial gap. I seek to shed light why, from one point of view, taken in real time, it persists.
Listening is hard work.
The chances are fairly good that cute little Trayvon was casing houses for burglaries. The testimony of numerous individuals in the neighborhood, including Black residents, indicates that numerous recent break-ins were all perpetrated by young Black criminals, not unlike Trayvon. Trayvon could have well been using his cell phone to contact other criminals who would break into the houses he fingered. That he lived in the neighborhood provided the perfect alibi for him to be in the neighborhood, while still up to no good.
Preston, You have little street "cred." Did you grow up in an Adventist community, sheltered from the reality of the streets? Trayvon was no Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson. It's entirely possible that he was just "muggin'" for the camera that portrayed him as a "gangsta" wannabe; however, it sounds like the general drift of his life was toward prison rather than university.
Much of the problem, of course, can be blamed on poor parenting, which is endemic to the Black community. The reality in America is that Black people are not White, nor are they usually treated the same. There is a reason for that. Blacks often misbehave [or are perceived to]; consequently, they are regarded through a different lens by the White community. Black parents need to sensitize their children to the different expectation imposed upon them by the White community. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" taken to heart by Trayvon might have saved his life.
I was once confronted by a Neighborhood Watch member. Fact is, I failed the personality test. He was White like me; however, I still resented being questioned by him. I basically blew him off, told him to get a real policeman to question me, if there was a legitimate issue. He simply walked away. White or not, had I made any threatening movements, the outcome would likely have been quite different. He maintained a respectful distance from me at all times, I might ad. Obvbiously, in the Martin case, somebody was getting in somebody's face. Had Tray killed Zimmy, he'd be a hero in the Black community. He got “whupped,” so now it's sour grapes.
I mean none of this as disrespectful of the personal loss to Trayvon's family. Gangsta or not, he was still blood..
We may just now actually be getting somewhere—even if it is rock bottom.
Having no idea whether this individual is a Seventh-day Adventist or not, would a responsible voice in the white Adventist community in America kindly inform us if this is at all a representative example of the attitude and feelings amongst that community?
My apologies Nathan, you were right about us not living in parallel universes after all. Now I see; there is a difference between a world and a universe.
My earlier post to this was, apparently, deleted — without explanation. So, for the record, again, I want to thank Brother Hansen for his candid input.
I rest my case. Thank you for demonstrating the point I have been pushing. We could not make this up. People should see this for what it is.
Peace.
ghansen,
And they wonder why we have Regional Conferences.
You offer no evidence, except the selective re-enforced sterotyped ancedotal "testimony" from unsworn sources you are predisposed to believe. What do you know of Trayvon? Your assumptions about the arc of his life (again, he had NO criminal record) are EXACTLY why most blacks (of any age, education, or economic class) do not trust the law enforcement or the judicial system: bias, backed by power.
Now, you have the temerity to tell me about my life? My family is from Harlem. My father pastored in Brooklyn. I have seen more than you can process — of both the challenges of the black community and the strength of the parents who raise their children in an enviornment born of purposeful, systematic disadvantage.
Now that you have, hopefully, relieved yourself of your well brewed stereotypes and bile ("Had Tray killed Zimmy, he'd be a hero in the Black community. He got 'whupped,' so now it's sour grapes . . . Gangsta or not, he was still blood."), do you have any facts that support your conclusions?
If I had the time, I'm sure I could provide you with facts about the number of white preppy types who burglarize residences in Harlem. I could save time by guessing and say that, stastistically, it is zero. I would also venture that your family was atypical. Certainly, you are not suggesting that your experience as a law abiding person with good parents [I assume] typifies the experience of all Harlem residents or all Black people in places such as Detroit, Los Angeles or Chicago. I'm not disputing that you experienced racial injustice. I do assume that you would respond differently than Trayvon did.
True, my experience with racist Black pastors fomenting unrest in regional churches is merely anecdotal, something I learned on the streets rather than from a book. That's why I never forgot the experience.What makes you think that SDA pastors are any more illuminated that Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright? Your Daddy or your life experience?
Neither of our life experiences provide a mean from which we can extrapolate much. Admittedly, your experience in America as a Black man in America gives you an insight I'll never have. My expereince as a White man in racist China gives me a perspective you will never have. Neither of our experiences have much bearing on what transpired between Tray and Zimmy.
Sorry about the double posts. Under certain conditions, there is a long delay on the postings.
The Trayvon Martin tragedy is a Rorschach test and a demonstration of why, sadly, there can and will never be a resolution to the racial divide in America.
The comments here are exemplars of this. Some people, notably idealistic Adventists among them, understandably have trouble accepting this. Not me.
I posted that nearly three weeks ago.
Brother Hansen (and the seemingly consenting silence regarding this dude) actually reinforces this perception: that Trayvon was racially profiled; and according to Brother Hansen, for very good reason.
Blacks are morally inferior (and black Adventist pastors are largely of the Sharpton variety). Do we understand you correctly Brother Hansen? Or is there more you can share?
Could we have fabricated a better foil?
Timo,
Have you no words of counsel for our dear Brother Hansen? Why are we, alone, the beneficiares of your advice? Have we not sought, comparatively speaking, the higher ground? Again, if you listen a little harder, the "consenting silence" comment was focused on Brother Hansen's bigoted remarks, not the racial profiling of Mr. Zimmerman.
I asked the moderating team NOT to delete Hansen's remarks, as they, in my view, serve to define an extreme of the racial divide. It seems all the nannying is toward a point of view you seem not to share.
Why do you assume that we countenance any illegal act (re: the Rodney King reactions)? What did either of us say that even implied that?
In terms of the racial divide, we have sought to simply define another point of view — that is under-represented on this site. We have asked people to listen to and consider a minority perspective. Apparently, that is too much to ask. The work of change is shifted, completely, to us.
Christ challenged people to see the truth and to consider others. We seek the same.
We never seem to understand each other; which at this point borders on comical.
I said that the Trayvon Martin tragedy demonstrates why there will never be a resolution to the racial divide in America. I did not say that I have concluded that as a result of this tragedy that there will never be a resolution to the racial divide in America.
I had already concluded this. The demonstration reinforces the conclusion that was previously reached.
Again, the misunderstanding is entirely my fault.
Where did you get the impression that Jesus was an idealist, bruh? Idealists believe things can be good, now. Jesus was indeed the ultimate realist—who realized that His kingdom was not of this world.
Where's the objectivity? I could very well be wrong, but I would suggest that the comments of brother's Foster has a historical basis, which could be rightly understood to mean "here we go again" when it comes to this highly public unfolding of the Zimmerman / Martin incident.
Timo, the Zimmerman timeline may fairly represent his personal life in the run up to the incident. But I don't believe that has anything to do with whether or not the "captian' of the "neighborhood watch" was justified in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin. As understandable as his actions may be in the light of the proceeding events, when ever does the ends justify the means? As well meaning as his actions might have been, why did Zimmerman pursue Trayvon? There is no getting around the fact that Trayvon was "profiled." To debate that fact is rather ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned. At the heart of this debate started and ended with how the Stanford Police Dept. handled the arrest and release of Zimmerman after the event based on the the stand your ground law, is the point of ignition… the opinions that flow out from there is for the most part subjective, and from the human / historical standpoint… to be expected. It's been like this in our country for how long? As to what extent Zimmerman will be held legally accountable for the pursuit beyond being told that was not needed by 911, that is up to the legal process. Stephen has made it rather clear, he has no confidence in the legal system, and if I get his reasoning, it is do to the historical dynamics. But we are all left to wait / see what the outcome will actually be.
The media has done a very good job at creating the deep divide that has become quite apparent on this blog. Depending on what line of thought you trace, you can come up with how many divergent conclusions? Yet, at the heart of the matter is, there is another unnecessary death of a black young man. To me the bigger issue of late in this blog is not the sensitivity of brother's Foster, but the insensitivity that comes from really not knowing what the black experience is / has been about… in our lifetime on the rest of our part. I have spent the best part of the last 35 years affliated with the black community almost exclusively, but as a white man with a black wife, as much as I know about the community and it's people, I can never know what it is to be black… in America, therefore I have to be very wise in how I speak to racial issues when it comes to the black and white dynamic. I have 2 sons that are bi-racial, and I endeavored to help them develop the mindset that they are who they are as men, but that does not change the fact that the world catagorizes them as black, not partly.
Until we learn to put on each others shoes, with the mindset of obtaining an objective understanding of what the other is going thru, right / real / imagined… the divides will continue to exist… in and out of the church…
Timo,
The beauty of the written word is that the record speaks for itself.
As a northern European Canadian you perhaps are unaware that most African Americans are part white; as Zimmerman is part black.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it hasn’t made a bit of difference; and does not make any difference in this case.
I haven’t read the link, but it has been pointed out to me that Zimmerman’s maternal great grandfather was half black or something to that effect.
My maternal great grandmother was half white. So, what?
Again, profiling is simply prejudging someone as suspicious based on how they visually appear to the profiler, plain and simple. Trayvon was prejudged as appearing suspicious to Zimmerman.
Racial profiling is an unfortunate fact of American life. Black people accept is a fait accompli. It’s what happens after having been profiled, especially when not being guilty of doing anything, at the hands of a civilian at that—who would not have even been charged with a crime— that becomes somewhat problematic, shall we say.
Timo,
The so-called "rush to judgment" to find Zimmerman guilty or to "exonorate Trayvon" rhetoric reflect a media influenced view of the issue, not anything that either Trayvon's parents, nor those sympathetic to them — here on this site, have avocated. What was simply requested was justice, via the court system.
The conservative sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" legislation volunteered that the law was never intended to protect actions like Zimmerman's in this case. That, along with the sheriff's explanation that Zimmerman was not charged due to the constraints of that law cause many to see the need of an investigation and a trial.
There are links that will exonorate Trayon and Zimmerman: take your pick. Thankfully, our judicial system is not trial-by-link, but by sworn testimony, examined by a jury and managed by a judge. Although I have no confidence in the system, it is our means to what passes for justice in America. I have and will live with its findings. It is all we have.
Why do those who protect Mr. Zimmerman seem to fear it?
There is no evidence that Trayvon "deserved to die". Please, please please. I have a 18 year old son, who wears hoody's and goes to convenience stores, day and night. Trayvon was not detained by police and beligerent and in contempt of a cop. He was being followed. There are no "reporting witnesses" that state they hear two men yelling obscenities … and fighting … Wouldn't there be sounds of this, even if there were no witnesses? There were sounds of someone crying or screaming or wailing for "help" … From the 911 tape I heard this sounded far away or muffled. Did someone have a choke hold? If Trayvon had a choke hold on Zimmerman, are there marks on his neck? Photos? Did someone photograph the sidewalks for the pieces of skin from head bashing into concrete? There must be some forensics to prove this entire story or not … I am in utter grief, that things like this and this story happen at all … in our peace loving, God fearing nation … What are we doing? Why are we killing Trayvon because another teen was a suspect. Just because the other teens were "suspects" were they convicted? This is sadness sadness tragedy all over it.
Dear "Hansen", I am caucasian and I have visited interracial SDA churches and have not experienced this characterization. I have experienced the most beautiful, heart felt, divine reaching worship services ever in these churches. Why are we talking like this? Aren't we of the same God who spilled His international blood for us all?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
Timo,
Forgive me for not understanding your editing at all. I do not.
Is not the purpose of all that is written here that people see it? It is laughable to me that pointing that out what is said by someone else (that vividly makes the point I've been pushing) is to "sensationlize it." What is more outlandish is that our pointing to the postings of others that are, to me, blatantly racist and personal (toward me and my "Daddy," for example) are, in effect, protected. If we decry it, then we're looking for a "nanny;" if we point to it, we are sensationalizing it. Is the only acceptable option to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
My statements (they are numerous, so I'm not quite sure to which comments you are referring) were primarily about those who have seen fit to aggressively destroy Trayvon's reputation in defense of Mr. Zimmerman. However, I stand by my contention that the coaching, here on this strand, is uniformly selective and exclusive to a point of view that, apparently, must be muted.
By now, it is clearly not a coincidence.
Timo,
Your filters translate the messages for you. If you will note, every time I have made my claim of unbalanced "coaching," it has been framed as a bias against a point-of-view, not a race. The correlation between point-of-view and race is not 100%.
Thankfully.
I just came back to this thread. I am saddened to see ghansen employ negative stereotypes to reach conclusions for which there is no evidentiary support. The fact that others have done it in order to turn this into a racial issue is no excuse. But why, instead of seeing Hansen's comments as qualitatively different from others who disagree with them, do Stephen and Preston leverage Hansen's comments into a vindication of their view that others like me, who disagree with them, are either racists or blind to racism in America? Would it be reasonable for me to impute the over-the-top comments of American Black leaders to you, Preston and Stephen, because they share some of your conclusions? I don't think so. By putting those who disagree with you in a box – by reading a racist agenda into the Trayvon Martin shooting when so many facts are unknown and ambiguous – do you not encourage the very racial divide that you decry?
This is sad Nathan; really very sad.
This ghansen guy employed racist stereotypes and we responded with some measured, predictable outrage.
You evidently missed my apology to you that after reading Hansen’s “opinions” (for lack of a better word) I acknowledge that you and I are not in different universes after all. You evidently missed my plea for a responsible voice in the white Adventist community in America to kindly inform us if Hansen’s sentiments were at all representative of the attitude in that community; in what was an obvious softball to people such as you, which might have ended this by now. You evidently missed Dennis’s previous attempts to put me and Al Sharpton in the same “box.” You evidently missed my observation that as a result of Hansen’s ill advised comments remaining on this site—with no condemnatory comments from the Moderator or others such as yourself—that I am now of the opinion that anyone who has ever been censored or edited or warned or sanctioned or deleted with regard to commentary on atoday perhaps has an apology coming, or certainly due; with practically anything apparently now being fair game—except of course outraged responses to racist stereotypes by us.
The “funny” thing is, I had decided to let this go; until your comment.
Peace, My Brother.
We are, all, learning.
Thanks much. Blessings, faith, and love.
Nathan,
We try very hard to be careful, but clear when race is on the table.
Our responses were directed, primarily, in four areas: 1) the character assassination of Trayvon employed in defense of Mr. Zimmerman, 2) the diversions employed via the conflation of the specific issues of this case with "attractive" scapegoats or other unrelated issues, 3) the racial stereotyping, prejudicial conclusions, and disrespectful bile of Brother Hansen (and the accompanying silence, implying assent), 4) and selective listening and one-sided "coaching" by the staff, placing the burden of respectful communication and change on those who sympathize with Trayvon and his parents.
I believe we are all, to a greater extent than we realize, blind to racism in America — which is why it persists. It inhibits our ability to listen, to hear, and, our willingness to think. Change is discomforting. It is work we would much rather avoid. What we have tried to do here is to expose some of the symptoms that, in this conversion about this case, add bricks to the wall of separation between the races.
Correction: the phrase in the last sentence should say, "in this conversation . . . "
Thanks.
I'm sorry that I seem to have misunderstood both of you Preston and Stephen. I thought you were registering Hansen's comments as being in line with comments that others, such as myself, had made. And I thought your apology to me, Stephen was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
I fully understand your frustration and indignation. Hansen's comments reflect one side of the racial divide; Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and their media enablers represent the other side. Both should be condemned. I certainly recognize that racism exists, though growing up in Denver, I was more sheltered from it. I experienced quite a shock when I visited Florida in the early '70's, heard the taunts, and saw the callousness. I experienced those same feelings on reading Hansen's comments.
The four issues that Preston identifies are all valid, although number 3 assumes that there were a number of readers who actually read Hansen's comments before they were highlighted. I did not, and I suspect there are only a handful of us carrying on this discussion. Race is, as Preston observes, a very sensitive issue, especially when those engaged in the discussion have different perspectives and do not know each other. I don't take it personally when Zimmerman is the victim of racial character assasination. I just think it is wrong and misguided. I think that both of you have been guilty of speculative character assasination towards Zimmerman on this blog, though certainly you have done so in far more measured terms than Hansen used to denigrate Martin.
I strongly agree with Preston that racism still exists. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it persists because we are blind to it. I believe that it persists because laws and regulations put it front and center in our lives and politics. There is wealth and power to be gained by maintaining and deepening the racial divide. Take another look at Romans 6, 7 and 8. I never really understood well what Paul meant about how sin increases with the proliferation of law until I was able to see the effects of the moral/regulatory state in which righteousness is achieved through law. When Lady Justice lifts the blindfold, puts on her special interest spectacles, and becomes result oriented, based on the mood and morality of the times, not only racism, but sexism, class division, greed and envy, will all thrive. It is precisely when justice is blind – when we have a nation of laws, not of men – that invidious divides are eroded and bridged.
Nathan,
I do not pose as perfect or near-perfect. So I would be interested to know, specifically, what I (or Stephen) said about Zimmerman that amounts to "speculative character assassination."
I am also interested to know what Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson said about this case that is, in your view, worthy of condemnation.
To be clear, my primary problem is not with Mr. Zimmerman (although what what he did is, in my view, terrible), but with the authorities who sought not to press charges, hiding behind the Stand Your Ground law. I cannot control what individuals do or know what they were thinking when they acted. That is the job of the justice system. Since the sponsor of the bill disagreed with its initial application in the case of Trayvon and Zimmerman, there seemed to be no reason to use it as reason not to prosecute Zimmerman. It is, primarily, the mis-application (or selective application) of the law that Trayvon's parents and we, here, protest.
Preston – My conclusion regarding "speculative character assassination" of Zimmerman was a reference to what has come across as a foregone assumption on the part of Stephen, if not you, that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, and that, had Martin behaved exactly the same and not been Black, the shooting would never have occurred. I have also been made to feel, though it has not been explicitly stated, that those of us who argue for restraint, and resist a premature rush to judgment based on a speculative racial narrative, are at least closet racists. Perhaps neither you nor Stephen meant to convey that feeling. But it is hardly paranoid to think that Stephen's early comment on this blog – implying that there will never be an resolution to the racial divide in America until we come to see these issues as he does – is a not very subtle attack on our character.
Being a racial profiler is, to the political, cultural, and media elites, far more contmptible than being a "gangsta wannabe". In fact gangsta culture, be it music, art, or fashion, holds a respected place in the hearts and minds of mainstream Leftism. Certainly Hansen wasn't complementing Martin, and the statement that Martin was probably casing houses to burglarize has, to my knowledge, absolutely no basis in fact. That statement reflects far more negatively on the character of of the writer than on Martin's character. Nevertheless, I don't think you can deny that, in America today, accusing someone of gratuitous racial profiling is certainly character assassination. And on mainstream culture's list of character flaws and cardinal sins, nothing ranks higher than racism – not even sexism or homophobia.
As to the Sanford Police Department, I am not yet ready to join in the slander. I have seen law enforcement bungle many investigations, and fail to bring charges that raised a public outcry without any racial overtones. I myself was once publicly criticized, in a politically motivated newspaper editorial no less, for refusing to bring criminal charges that I did not feel were supported by the evidence. I know commentators have made a big deal out of the "stand your ground" law. But that may have had nothing to do with the decision not to arrest. The police may simply have felt that this was a straightforward case of self-defense. If Martin turned around to angrily confront Zimmerman when Zimmerman tried to question him; and if Martin attacked Zimmerman, causing Zimmerman to reasonably fear for his life, Zimmerman doesn't need "Stand Your Ground." General principles of self-defense will result in an acquittal unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life when he shot Martin, assuming of course that the shooting was intentional. Unintentional homicides sometimes occur in the course of fighting over a gun, and I don't know whether the undisputed evidence precludes such a possibility in this case.
Nathan,
You seem to assume that those arguing for restraint, those who abhor a rush to judgment, and those who support Trayvon are neccessarily different sets of folks. Not so. Trayvon's parents and those who support them, here on this site, have asked only for justice, within the system. To some (including me), the rush-to-judgment occurred — when Zimmerman was released (initially), without charges — and without sworn testimony.
There is no slander. In fact, the Sanford police did cite the Stand Your Ground law as the reason they did not charge Mr. Zimmerman ("Zimmerman was not initially charged by Sanford police, who cited the state's Stand Your Ground law." Read more here:http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/20/3567535/courtroom-surprise-zimmerman-offers.html#storylink=cpy).
To your charge that Stephen or I believe that Mr.Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon: nolo contrendre.
To equate that with character assassination is a stretch. That Zimmerman profiled Trayvon seems not to be in dispute (beside here): Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to 911 since 2004. The Miami Herald describes Zimmerman as "fixated on crime and focused on young black males." To me, that sounds like textbook racial profiling. The difference between that and character assassination is that the former is supported by facts (or, at least, the informed perceptions of a Pulitzer Prize winning news source) and the other is the product of unsupported assumptions, motivated by the need to justify the shooting of an unarmed young man with no criminal record.
Racial profiling (abhorant as it is to me) is a controversial process. Some conservatives advocate it as a "reasonable" law enforcement tactic. Depending on the circumstances, some people see racial profiling (i.e., looking for terrorists at airports) as prudent. I do not. Those who do are not, automatically racists. If we disagree about the use of the tactic, I am not impuning their character — I am merely questioning their judgment.
I have lived 55 years, knowing that, very likely, white and black Americans will see racial situations differently. I do not paint whites (or any other group) as racists because we come to different conclusions. Racism, in my view, occurs when the result is forced or pre-determined, for the purposes of continuing historic entitlement or tribal advantage, to perpetuate superiority, or because of animous toward another racial group. That is a high bar. How often it is crossed, and by whom, is where we disagree.
None of that makes either of us racists. But it does not rule it out either. A lack of continuous introspection, in my opinion, is what is most dangerous.
Nathan, we should have quit while we were behind (because we were never ahead); because we’re now only falling further behind.
I accept your apology for misunderstanding me. Why attempt, however, to juxtapose Hansen’s remarks with what Sharpton and Jackson have said? Besides not knowing to what comments or actions you refer, insofar as those two individuals are concerned, this comparison is transparently protective of Hansen by suggesting that the practically anonymous Hansen is bad, but the high profile Sharpton and Jackson are effectively worse; which is distractive of our legitimate grievance with this (“Your Daddy”) Hansen character.
Our perspectives on the (American) racial problem are, of course, from differing worlds. The laws—without which there is absolutely no reason to believe that status quo prior to 1954 would not still obtain in the U.S.—are not why racism persists.
From the perspective of those who do not trust human beings to be colorblind or fair or just or honest, laws represent a layer of protection against evil. Not so from that of those who may perceive less need for such protection.
Stephen – I think my response to Preston answers, though perhaps not to your satisfaction (LOL), the reason that I see Sharpton's and Jackson's bellicose charges of racism as morally equivalent to Hansen's remarks. No, I am not protecting Hansen or defending him. And yes, I do see Sharpton's and Jackson's posturing as much worse because they have a moral bully pulpit, and have used it irresponsibly. There is no "distraction", as you call it. You rightly find Hansen's speculative character assassination of Martin outrageous. So do I. How is it protective of Hansen for me to say that Sharpton's and Jackson's "lynching" of Zimmerman is morally equivalent, and much worse in its effect than Hansen's racist speculations? It is only protective if you support Sharpton and Jackson. It is only a distraction if you see no parallel. So your statement that the comparison is a distraction is really a value judgment on your part that begs the question of whether there is a legitimate parallel.
There are many reasons to believe that the grip of the "Separate But Equal" illusion, which supported Southern apartheid prior to 1954, would have lost its strength without Brown vs Board of Education, just as there are many reasons to believe that slavery in America would have ended without the Civil War. I don't happen to be a fan of either theory. You are no doubt aware of a number of studies which note a sharp increase in illegitimacy and crime, along with disintegration of the Black family beginning with well-intentioned laws and regulations enacted in the 60's, the effect of which was to increase dependency and irresponsibility. This was not limited to Blacks, but certainly, at a time when they were making significant strides in overcoming racial obstacles, they were hit harder than White America by the effects of government "largesse" and indulgence. I am sure you have read America In Black And White by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, which, whether you agree with it or not, makes a well-documented and compelling case. My point is that well-intentioned laws and regulations often create as much or more evil than the problems they ostensibly address.
I also believe strongly in the Constitution, as well as the necessity and value of laws in the earthly kingdom. Laws can and should protect against evil. But laws can only do so much. Laws and regulations designed to achieve equality of outcomes, promote an "enlightened" moral agenda, and change the human heart are fraught with moral hazard and negative trade-offs. If you want to argue with Romans 6,7&8, have at it. But don't you see how the regulatory nanny state may well have morphed the "deadly sins" of greed, lust, envy, pride, wrath, and sloth into practical, if not abstract, virtues, and creating in the process entirely new deadly sins of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and capitalism?
Hundreds of thousands of pages of federal and state regulations, as well as judicial and administrative case law have evolved to define and eradicate these sins, all ironically justified and fueled with the sanitized rhetoric of greed, envy, pride, and wrath, now collectively translated in the NIV as the supreme virtue of EQUALITY, which turns out in reality to be equality with an asterisk. I don't trust human beings to be colorblind, fair, just, or honest either. That's why I believe that the rule of law must be enacted, interpreted, and administered by accountable public servants, without regard to wealth, race or gender, in truly separate branches of a government with enumerated and limited powers.
Perhaps it is needless to say Nathan that you are testing my recent conversion to your view that we do not live in parallel universes—just different worlds.
(Again, if it had not been for Hansen, my mind may never have changed.)
You are, I think, an approximate contemporary of mine; so you are (I think) old enough to remember Martin Luther King. I am curious what you thought of him as you were in your youth.
I mention this because I am thinking that perhaps you are projecting some of what you felt about King forward, to more contemporary social activists, advocates, and agitators.
Preston has asked you to state or identify some of the things that the two most notable activists have said about this case that have been worthy of condemnation (or similar, in kind, to the remarks of Hansen); and instead of doing so, you have simply reiterated that the activists have engaged in “bellicose charges of racism,” and have figuratively lynched Zimmerman too.
We simply want what to see what the two activists you have repeatedly made reference to have said about this case and Zimmerman that is comparable to Hansen.
If there have been comparably irresponsible statements by these two, they should not be difficult to find, especially since one of them is the host of an hour-long broadcast on a cable network every weekday.
Until we see to what it is you have been referring, you drawing a parallel between Hansen and them remains distractive; and I am left to wonder if you have displaced historical disdain/disgust for the role of American activists, advocates, and agitators.
When I see you evoke the Thernstroms (or Charles Murray), I hearken back to the famous Colonel Jessup (Nicholson) line in A Few Good Men; because you simply could not handle the truth as I see it insofar as they, and their work, are concerned. Trust me on that.
That said, I understand and agree that many laws produce unintended consequences; the idiotic “Stand-Ur-Ground” Florida law being notable among them. I will not concede for a moment that the Civil Rights era legislation has done more harm than good to the black community however. Such a notion, forgive me, is patently ridiculous from my perspective.
Speaking of perspectives, this is one of the reasons why I declaratively predict—not imply—that there will never be a resolution to the racial divide in America. In my opinion there is far too little common ground and the society is viewed from diametrically opposed perspectives on too many fronts; with both blacks and whites seeing themselves as victims—blacks of racism and its effects, and whites of being accused as racists or as innocent victims of reverse racism—that there is no hope of things ever actually changing.
You, as an example, see “leftist” policies as the problem for and with everything; most blacks are of the opinion that conservative policies historically provide cover for institutional racism, wherein the “built-in” advantages of white men are preserved—or conserved—via public policy.
This, of course, brings us to history and historical revisionism in the United States. You may want to believe that slavery would have ended without the Civil War and that the “separate but equal” legal cloak for discrimination would have disappeared without the Brown case; but we both know for a fact that they did not.
If you are indeed suggesting that the so-called nanny state has in any way created racism, I hope I misunderstand you.