YOUR HIGHER MORALITY

[fpb]

Well, I suppose all my friends are right. We do need Zimmerman lynched. We are in need of a lynch mob unleashed by short and fraudulent media summaries to rip a man who has been judged innocent by a jury of his peers and hang him on a tree on the reports of MNBC and the rest. Because journalists never would lie and always understand everything that is going on, and are in fact fountains of virtue and sagacity, and we may confidently hate those whom they tell us to hate; whereas the jury that has spent weeks being exposed in detail to everything that could be retrieved of the facts are too stupid, ignorant and racist to make the right choice. We need more demos. We need more shouting. We need more threats.

Comments

[philosophymom.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't romanticize juries (and their ability to get things right) any more than I'd trust cable news' sensationalist coverage of the whole event.

We don't need a lynch mob, but if what happened was legal (and a jury says it was), then we need better laws.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So you know better than either?

[philosophymom.livejournal.com]

This is where the internet fails as a communication medium -- I have absolutely no idea what the tone of your question is. I have to tell you, though, that it doesn't feel friendly... Still, I'll answer it straightforwardly.

First, I think it's patently obvious that cable news outlets go for the sensational angle first, even when what they say is true. I'm not sure how that's "knowing better" than them (or than you, who also seems to distrust them). Second, I think it's unlikely that every jury in the history of juries has decided correctly, and I contrasted that opinion with what looked to me like your more trusting one. So maybe, in that case, I was implying that I know better than you, or at least that I have less respect for the common man than you do (if the latter, it may not be an opinion I'm proud of, but, yeah, I think I hold it).

I'm not sure I know better than the Zimmerman jury with regard to the specific charge they adjudicated. But "everything that could be retrieved of the facts" suggests to me that something unkosher went down, even if it wasn't manslaughter.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Let me hear those facts that I don't know. So far you have given generalities that prove nothing. I started out thinking as you do; then I had a series of unfortunate encounters with evidence. The police photographs of Zimmerman showed that his claim of having had his head smashed against the pavement by Martin were true. Martin's own tweets showed that he was a fanatical and unmanageable seeker for trouble, who had assaulted at least one teacher and a number of other people, and that he practised MMA (mixed martial arts) style assault. Have you ever been assaulted by a trained fighter? I have. The man was drunk at the time, and he only struck a few times, but he inflicted injuries that lasted for weeks. Martin was not drunk, and he was striking with his full strength. Another thing I know - from a man who worked with me as a security guard - is that if you strike the side of the head in a particular place, you can kill a man with one blow. I regard Martin's assault on Zimmerman's head as attempted murder.

So please, let us have your brilliant evidence that shows that Zimmerman was such a bad man and that it was at least in part his fault. And yes, I am not happy with anyone who follows the band to gamble away a man's life on inadequate and misleading information. Another thing I am quite familiar with is being the target of a Politically Correct witchhunt fed by lies spread by people in power.

[philosophymom.livejournal.com]

You know this is why you fall out with so many people, right? We have never, ever disagreed online without you getting hard and sarcastic right away. Did you even read my posts? In neither of them do I say that I'm sure Mr. Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter and that I could prove it with "brilliant evidence" (my God! Do you read you *own* posts before you put them online?). I did say that I didn't have as much confidence in juries as you seem to have (a generalization, to be sure), and I also said that I thought Zimmerman did something that was wrong and should be illegal. I was actually talking about his following the boy, and even if I'm wrong that there oughta be a law against it, it still strikes me as more than a bit off. I suppose it will be considered in the inevitable civil case.

I'm going to do that thing I always do and you hate, which is drop out of this discussion. By all means, interpret it as some kind of a concession on my part, but the fact is I might have continued the conversation -- and, who knows, refined my views! -- if you weren't so awful.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There ought to be a law against a member of neighbourhood watch following an intruder in a gated community (that is, practically in his own home)? Do you even realize what you are saying? And is it not obvious that you are looking for a reason, any reason, to find Zimmerman guilty of something? Picture yourself, the first time that an aggressive bully turns on you and growls "You followin' me, cracker?" Please, you are usually not this ridiculous.

[philosophymom.livejournal.com]

The one thing that can't be "obvious" is that I am "looking for a reason, any reason, to find Zimmerman guilty of something." It can't be obvious, because it isn't true: I have thought there was something wrong with his following Martin, which he did against the advice/wishes of the dispatcher to whom he was speaking on the phone at the time, from the first I heard of it. He wasn't even on duty as a member of the neighborhood watch that night. It struck me as stalker-ish (or harrasser-ish) and trouble-making.

And when an aggressive bully whom I am actually following asks me whether I am following him, I'll be rightly terrified, but what other answer would I have but "yes"?

I suppose the only reason I am "usually not this ridiculous" is that I hardly ever comment on current events or politics online. My trouble with Zimmerman is rooted in larger political views, but not racist ones and not, I think, knee-jerk political correctness. It's my general opposition to guns and vigilantism.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You will not find anyone more opposed to second-amendment nonsense and gun fanaticism than I am. I think they are a disease in the American body politic, and I think the Second Amendment doesn't mean what they think it means. http://fpb.livejournal.com/tag/second%20amendment But when you say that there ought to be a law to make it illegal for one person to follow another on the street, you are saying something so utterly absurd that it can only be explained with the desire to find Zimmerman guilty of something.

[philosophymom.livejournal.com]

When I say there oughta be a law, I suppose I am thinking that if someone were following me down the street, and I had a phone on me and called 911, I would like for there to be legal grounds for the police to respond to my call and confront/detain the follower. In a culture where I can get in trouble for making an illegal left turn in the middle of the the night with no other cars on the road, yeah, I think it's odd that someone who stalks someone else even once isn't considered to have done anything wrong.

Now, why must my holding this opinion, even if it can be shown to be naive and unworkable, be taken as evidence that I am desperate to find George Zimmerman guilty of something? To me, the Zimmerman incident demonstrates something I already believed, which is that armed street patrolling by civilians acting completely on their own authority is behavior that causes trouble and should be formally (i.e., with laws) discouraged. Again, by all means disagree that my stance is practical, but don't you dare accuse me of being part of a would-be lynch mob.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

All right. I might tell you that the assault on the unfortunate Zimmerman is a reality (remember the price put on his head by the Black Panthers?) driven for dirty political reasons from the very top (nobody was so much as questioned about that little stunt) and from the top of the top (remember a certain presidential candidate remarking that Martin looked like the son he never had? a candidate who, as a trained lawyer, ought to have known that you simply don't say things like that before a trial?). But then I would be called to defend the murderous lunatics who openly rejoiced in the boy's death, and I have no intention to do that.

I want, however, to tell you a couple of true stories. The first took place in the hideous academic year 1989-90, otherwise known as the Year of Hunting Barbieri Down. Among the various stories that the academic authorities used against me, one that did me particular damage was that of a former friend who claimed that I was following her around in the corridors and that she was afraid of being raped. You will have to take my word for it that I was doing nothing of the kind, and that on one occasion not long before I had actually found myself alone with her in her own bedroom and had not even thought of any such thing. (She also was the most beautiful woman in the whole college.) The place was all corridors, and one could not help meeting someone who was studying many of the same courses and interested in the same areas; and as for wanting to do anything with her, this was the time of my head-over-heels total and absolute love for Debbie Wallace, and even though I tell you that this woman was as beautiful as Aphrodite, I simply was not interested. Now the authorities at SOAS behaved exactly as you think they should in the rest of the world: "Please, sir, this man is following me around!" "Who, m-" "CATCH HIM! GET HIM! HANG, DRAW AND QUARTER HIM!!!"
.
But even without that charming experience, I had still been taught a lesson a couple of years before. One night I was walking down a London street and I heard someone walking behind me. It was a young black man in a hoodie. I got nervous and tried to accelerate, but the guy was faster than me and caught up. He said: "Give me your money!" I said: "W-What?" - and then he started to laugh and walked away. I can't say this story does me much honour, but it taught me a lesson I've never forgotten.

[stahlhelm.livejournal.com]

"It's my general opposition to guns and vigilantism."

Easy to have that opposition to guns when your privilege to feel that way was secured by men with guns in the first place.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I think I have to intervene here. I don't think Karen deserved this level of rudeness, and I doubt whether she said what you seem to think. Opposition to vigilantism is not opposition to the legitimate use of force, and in fact Karen said nothing to say that she disapproved of Zimmerman using deadly force in self-defence. What bothered her - and there I have to say I did not agree - was the picture of the older man following the younger. I don't think it's right to blanket-dismiss her opinions on the legitimate use of force on that basis.

This saddens me because you are both friends of mine and I think highly of you both. S., P. is a philosophy teacher, mother of three, classical chorus singer and all-around good egg, a kindly, constructive, hard-working person whom life has treated a lot worse than she deserves. P. S. is a Marine in active service and either now or recently on duty in Afghanistan, and so is apt to be touchy if he perceives a dismissal of the legitimate use of arms. He is a man of unusual and independent mind and an amazingly brilliant artist who could easily make a living from his drawings. You are my friends and I like you both; I would like you both, not to agree, which is an idea I hate, but to understand and respect each other.

Finally, S., I hadn't heard from you in months and you may imagine I was worried. It is very good to hear from you and be reassured, and since yesterday was my birthday I regard this as a birthday present.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

Happy birthday! I'm sorry, I was out of town, visiting family, and missed the occasion. Many happy returns.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No need to apologize, and thank you.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I did not say that you said Zimmerman was guilty of murder or manslaughter. I said, and I repeat, that you are looking for reasons to find him guilty of anything. That should be obvious to anyone who reads your post. And yes, where a man's life and reputation being slaughtered for the convenience of political whores is concerned, I do turn hard and sarcastic. Ask yourself which one of us is placing himself against political and media power, and you may begin to understand why.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

A big, big part of the problem with this whole situation is that the mainstream media here in the US is heavily, overwhelmingly, dominated by one point-of-view...and is permanently mentally stuck in a time warp where every confrontation or disagreement between blacks and whites is the Bridge at Selma. To them, blacks are wronged innocents, and if a black is in the wrong, you refer back to the previous rule and do all you can to suppress the inconvenient truth.

They were careful to run, at first, only a picture of Martin that had been taken several years before his death, and made him look angelic, while the picture of Zimmerman they used did not, to say the least, show him at his best. Unfortunately for their preferred narrative, the more facts came out, the less Zimmerman looked like the second coming of Bull Connor, and the more of a hoodlum Martin turned out to be.

This apple-cheeked lad had been in that neighborhood in the first place because he'd become a discipline problem at his school---as in caught with burglary tools and women's jewelry for which he had no explanation. Unfortunately (for Martin) the school was under heavy pressure to bring down the numbers of its black male students who were leaving the place in handcuffs, so he was merely sent to live with his father.

Also, Martin's social-media entries came to light, and were soon to be seen all over the internet, and the more of them that appeared, the more of a gangsta-wannabe (at the very, very least) he looked like.

Zimmerman almost certainly wouldn't have been charged but for fear of riots, thanks to the professional demagogues who are seen as "leaders of the black community." Even if I thought he was as dirty as hell and deserved to fry, I'd rejoice at his acquittal, merely because I detest the sight of juries and courts being swayed by threats of mob violence.

And, ironically enough, Zimmerman himself was, at least before all this hoo-rah, almost a caricature of an Obama voter. He'd held the local cops' feet to the fire some years previous over their treatment of a homeless black man, he'd helped tutor black students, he was a good liberal...until Obama had to throw him under the bus to please the race rabble-rousers.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I heard everything you mention. Actually, I have a suspicion that the local police, thought they knew perfectly well that Zimmerman was no more guilty than the man in the moon, may well have been pleased to help the prosecutors because they remembered him from when he had taken a very vocal part in the campaign that had forced a previous police head to resign, only a year before.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

That makes the whole thing stink even more.

If this goes on, I might as well move to the Norfolk Fens.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Don't bother. The British police is as corrupt and the PC instinct even more primary.

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

The original local police on the case (the detectives and the chief) didn't believe there was anything to arrest Zimmerman for, according to various accounts that came to light during the trial. It wasn't until sociopolitical pressure was brought to bear - and new personnel were brought in on the case - that he was arrested and prosecuted. Most legal analysts have expressed the opinion that murder charges were almost certainly never going to be made to stick, a notion reinforced by the last-minute decision to tell the jury that manslaughter could also be considered. By trial's end, I wager, it was too late for that. The state blew its wad on second-degree murder, and even they figure the odds were strong it was a loser. I truly believe they always knew but felt that had to "do" something.

The United States of America is deeply fractured. It doesn't help that it, with the willing and eager help of the Democratic and Republican parties and the press, is addicted to outrage orgasms. There are a large number of people, white and non-white, that want Zimmerman made an example of, for him to be punished not only for his crime but also for the crimes of others they believe, rightly or wrongly, "got away with it." And there are a large number of people, mostly white, who are actually happy that Trayvon Martin is dead and violently because of what they feel he represented: a young black male criminal-in-training. I've not only read posts and essays by members of both groups. I've listened to them in conversation. I've not had one with any of them because, frankly, there is no such thing allowed. Either "Zimmerman is a hateful, racist monster who got away with murdering an child" or "Martin, that little thug-wannabe who was probably going to be living off the taxpayer dime in prison in a few years anyway, deserved that bullet." And a lot of people speak of it all as if they wish that either they could throw the switch on Zimmerman or could have shot Martin themselves. It's not going to get any better any time soon, I fear.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My own experience of having the Politically Correct hounds of Hell unleashed against me by people in power (specifically, university authorities) leads me to feel strong sympathy with Zimmerman, who has done nothing wrong that I can see. Of course, being no fan of gun nuts and lynch mobs, I am not going to jump up and down at the waste of a life that began long before Martin ran into that bullet. I hate the thought of - as Dickens wonderfully put it - "...children...generated in great numbers for certain destruction... imprisoned, whipped, transported, neglected, cast out, qualified in all ways for the hangman, and growing up to be hanged... so much spawn, to develop into the fish that were to come to his net,—to be prosecuted, defended, forsworn, made orphans, bedevilled somehow," (Great Expectations, ch.51)

[jsl32.livejournal.com]

Zimmerman was a sweet (black) man (if my own children are black, which they are) who cared about his community and his neighbors greatly and ended up fearing for his life one night and made a moment's decision to save his own life.

Martin was a silly young man who might have grown out of his stupidity, but we'll never know, because he had to face the consequences for it in a very direct way.

That is what I see in the evidence available to us non-jury members and it's greatly distressing to me that black people didn't get behind the other black guy in that fight.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, I hope some do... If you look at the company any real protester would find himself in, perhaps that would be enough to make them think again. The latest news is that "protesters" either have looted or are trying to loot a Wal-Mart. Interesting way to protest, that.

[stahlhelm.livejournal.com]

I really don't give a fuck about Trayvon Martin. He was pounding a guy's head into the concrete. Provoked or not, Martin escalated what could've been a merely verbal misunderstanding into lethal force. Zimmerman ended the threat. And this is merely going off the evidence we have.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I agree. But what is appalling about Martin is that he represents the waste of a whole generation, perhaps two, in idiotic macho dreams and looseness of every kind - from loose language that almost consciously neglects the dignity of English to scattershot giving birth here and there just to produce more ill-suited numbers. And I doubt it's only among blacks; I have seen exactly similar attitudes and behaviours over here, at least, among the shattered and defeated remnants of Britain's former working class. And that is not Martin's fault: he'd have had to be a kind of hero to escape an environment that is so bad and destructive in every way.