The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[caroljane]

c'mon dggl, that isn't George, it is Honey Boo Boo's mother!

I'm proud to say I've never watched that show.

Seriously, though, look at the profiling that baby is obviously doing.

I don't watch it either. I get all my vital information from the |National Enquirer.

OK, I concede it must be him. It is not often you can recognise an adult from his baby pictures. My son Stu was cute but looks nothing like his now differently-cute self. #2 Andy, the Heartthrob of East York, looked sort of like a little pink sledgehammer.

[Selene]

In Sanford, where Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin last year in what he maintains was self-defense, city officials have been preparing for months. Top local officials interviewed by CNN recently offered some insight into the preparations, showing teams of police officers fanning out across the city to knock on doors and talk to residents prior to the verdict being announced. Local pastors are also being recruited by authorities to help keep the peace.

“Our worst fear is that we will have people from outside of the community coming in and stirring up ... violence in the community,” said Sanford Police Chief Cecil Smith, refusing to offer more details about law-enforcement plans. City Manager Norton Bonaparte said Rodney King-type riots were “certainly a possibility.” Mayor Jeff Triplett had similar concerns, telling CNN that a single person could provoke a firestorm and that Sanford was a “tinderbox” last year.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15918-if-zimmerman-walks-media-inspired-riots-anticipated

Meanwhile, some analysts are predicting massive riots outside of Florida as well. Licensed private detective and former Chicago police officer Paul Huebl, for example, writing in Crime File News, pointed to the danger signs — violent Twitter posts, outrageous media “reporting,” Obama’s half-baked comments about the case, and more — to argue that major unrest was all but inevitable at this point.

“With today’s social media I fully expect organized race rioting to begin in every major city to dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots of past decades,” he wrote in the widely cited piece. “If you live in a large city be prepared to evacuate or put up a fight to win. You will need firearms, fire-suppression equipment along with lots of food and water. Police resources will be slow and out gunned everywhere.”

Huebl, whose comments went “viral” after being picked up in the alternative media, warned that the looming verdict could spark bigger problems than riots. “America is about to see some combat-related population control like we’ve not seen since the Civil War. Martial Law can’t be far behind complete with major efforts at gun grabbing,” he continued. “This may be a turning point in America. Freedom will either be retaken or lost for our lifetimes and our children's.”

If and when chaos erupts following the verdict — a distinct possibility even if Zimmerman were to be convicted, some analysts say — it would hardly be the first time in U.S. history that a coalition of race-mongers and the establishment media helped fan the flames. Perhaps the most spectacular example, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, bears remarkable similarities in terms of the deceptive reporting, the paid race agitators, and the explosive cocktail resulting mostly from the ignorance and behind-the-scenes organization. A verdict in the Zimmerman trial is expected in the coming days or weeks.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re the above post: Sounds to me like The New American is fomenting and even salivating.

Also, what analysts? I'm reminded of reports which intone "Scientists say..." as if these words were a magic formula conferring certitude.

ADD: It does look to me like it's the alternative media which is hoping for riots so as to produce a showdown the instigation of which they can blame on "race agitators" and Obama and the mainstream media.

Ellen

Edited July 7, 2013 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Why would blacks riot over Martin when they have a black ("white-black") in the White House? Anyway, Zimmerman is Hispanic ("white-Hispanic").

--Brant

besides, they might get shot

the South-Central LA riots in 1992 started when the cops ran: when I was 11 or 12 I ran away from two little dogs and got bit and never ran away from a dog again--the odds of cops running away again are zilch--except in Detroit

[Selene]

...when I was 11 or 12 I ran away from two little dogs and got bit and never ran away from a dog again--the odds of cops running away again are zilch--except in Detroit

In battles, historically, the highest casualty rates were during retreats...

[caroljane]

Re the above post: Sounds to me like The New American is fomenting and even salivating.

Also, what analysts? I'm reminded of reports which intone "Scientists say..." as if these words were a magic formula conferring certitude.

ADD: It does look to me like it's the alternative media which is hoping for riots so as to produce a showdown the instigation of which they can blame on "race agitators" and Obama and the mainstream media.

Ellen

I agree. It looks to me like the usual suspects spinning their eternal "coming race war" agitprop.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The 8 links I posted in #357 were the first 8 items I found on the then-current first page of a Google search using:

Zimmerman race riots Chicago

The reason I did a search on those key words was to see if there were items in Chicago newspapers about plans in case of riots.

What I got on the search was page after page of entries with the caption:

"Ex-Chicago Cop: Zimmerman Acquital to Cause Race Riots"

Here is a link to the search screen..

You might note, if you look at the search results, the high percentage of non-mainstream sites, and you might get an impression, if you click on some of these sites, of, um...salivating.

When I first did the search a couple days ago, the first link I found to a mainstream Chicago newspaper was on page 10.

It wasn't a news item but instead an Opinion page letter to the editor.

I don't know what page of the search this is on now, but here's a direct link to it.

The subject line is "No Envy for Zimmerman trial jurors."

Ellen

[Selene]

So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.Udn0L38STIe

[Peter]

It will be interesting to see the Tweets and typos re-published if Zimmerman is acquitted. Social media quotes, especially from celebrities, could fuel race riots. I watched the premier of a black comedian’s show, on TNT I think, and it definitely was a crude and stale attempt to fan racial hatred towards non blacks. Will potential black rioters target Hispanics? Watch out LA, California!

It will be interesting to see what occurs and especially, the Obama administration’s response. On election day 2012 two black panthers in Philadelphia intimidated voters outside a polling place but Eric Holder refused to bring them to justice. I think this is a sign that rioting blacks will get sympathy and a “pass” from our first black President. His election changed nothing as far as race relations go. Blacks will still react emotionally, violently, and stupidly if Zimmerman is acquitted. Which means they may be incapable of thinking for themselves. I would not want an emotional black with a chip on their shoulder on the jury if I were George, and I say that from a rational, not racial perspective. Look at the evidence.

Peter

[caroljane]

Wipe your chin in a rational manner, Sir. \You're salivating.

[Selene]

On election day 2012 two black panthers in Philadelphia intimidated voters outside a polling place but Eric Holder refused to bring them to justice.

It was 2008.

Secondly, the Black Panthers defaulted in Court and Holder's "Justice Department refused to process the default.

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

Wipe your chin in a rational manner, Sir. \You're salivating.

end quote

Patooie! Was I salivating over my “predictive abilities” or the chance for more people to die over nonsense and wrong thinking?

I wrote, “On election day 2012 two black panthers in Philadelphia intimidated voters outside a polling place but Eric Holder refused to bring them to justice.”

Adam corrected me by saying:

It was 2008. Secondly, the Black Panthers defaulted in Court and Holder's "Justice Department refused to process the default.

end quote

Thank you for setting me right, Adam.

Is there “White Racism” and “lumping them all together” in our discussion of this case? Daunce may think so. Not so oddly, I have had no conversations about the concept of *reification* with any person with African genes. Though I once discussed with someone of Asian ancestry if the “individual talents found within races,” is something to be examined scientifically. I mentioned that I had read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs invented . . . etc.

And David Lee from our ally The Philippines responded:

One question: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. If they can, hey, "collective" effort does work wonders. This is assuming that there were NO forerunners for if there were, he/she/that set should be the only ones truly to deserve credit.

end quote

He said that to discredit the concept of *reification.*

From Britannica:

Reification . . . the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing, as in the following lines from Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach”:

The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore

Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.

end quote

That’s a bit obscure. Would you agree with the totality of the following statement, or is it too extreme?

To paraphrase a contributor to the old Atlantis, Steve Reed wrote:

The only humans that actually exist and have rights, and for whom anything can be good or bad, or who can invent something, are individuals. Nations, such as “China” or "America," do not in fact exist except as figures of speech. To think in terms of what would be "Good For The Philippines" is a delusional reification of collectivist speech.

However psychologist and fan of Nathaniel Branden, David Lee also, once said the following:

“While I do agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development . . .”

and he wrote:

“. . . which revealed that the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp . . .”

So he was also reifying “culture with cognitive development of individuals” and “the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp.” Both concepts are reification. But there are only individuals, according to the anti-reification theory.

Yes, there are only individuals but I disagree about the usefulness of reifications. What if you are pointing at a map? Large collective concepts are not collectivism. I could say Ming, and Chang, and Wong and name a billion other Chinese living in the territory of China and then say Woo, and Chou and a billion other of their individual ancestors did this or that but it is ridiculous to NOT just say, “The Chinese,” did this, and know you understand me. So, yes the smallest minority is the individual, but sociological concepts also have their place. Now if I were a Marxist you would be correct to call me out for my reifications, but I am an Objectivist.

I have no qualms about saying, Ayn Rand achieved what she did by standing on the shoulders of Giants, because, unless you are being picky, you know what I meant by Giants. It’s quicker, simpler, and a way to automatize (how did Rand spell that word?) concepts.

To go back a bit further Ayn wrote:

A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. [iTOE, p. 5.]

Scott Ryan once criticized this quote by writing:

So "sensations, as such, are *not* retained by man's memory," but (some) *groups* of sensations *are* thus retained -- and retained *automatically*. But if sensations, "as such," are not "retained" by our memories, how is it that one's "brain" is able to retain them -- even in "groups" -- while it performs the task of "integration"? And if a percept *is* a "group of sensations," isn't it true that our memories *do* "retain" sensations? Or are our sensations transformed into something else by this mysterious process of "integration" (on which Rand nowhere sees fit to elaborate)? And does all of this mean we can't remember single sensations? As Rand would say: Blank-out.

end quote

Scott was right, but still a bit picky. Ayn Rand could sound really, really smart even when she was a bit imprecise. I will accept someone’s reifications as long as they don’t start harping on “The Masses” or incorrectly state what all “Objectivists” think, unless I think so too.

Judge everyone individually on a personal level. On a “survival level” use statistics to guide your actions. If you are not black, only a fool would be in Harlem, Watts, or any black neighborhoods in Chicago or any other city or town in America when the verdict is first known. Any fools disagree with my reification?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

So "sensation

Scott was right, but still a bit picky. Ayn Rand could sound really, really smart even when she was a bit imprecise. I will accept someone’s reifications as long as they don’t start harping on “The Masses” or incorrectly state what all “Objectivists” think, unless I think so too.

?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Once again, you make my point for me.

[Selene]

Well folks, here is a depressing opinion from an "expert" law professor, one of the most respected law professor's in the United States, and someone that I have corresponded with, and someone that I respect:

"Whether or not Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled and shouldn’t have been doing it and didn’t listen to police, that's all irrelevant in Florida law," Dershowitz said.

"The case begins when the first blow was struck, essentially. And we don’t know who struck the first blow. We don’t know if Trayvon Martin came out from behind of a dark area and jumped him and got him down.

"And as long as we don’t know that, [and] we don’t know whose voice it was who was yelling, 'Help me! Help me!' That's reasonable doubt."

He said reasonable doubt boils down to percentages.

"If you think it's 60 percent likely or 70 percent or even 80 percent likely that Zimmerman is guilty and doesn’t deserve self-defense, you have to acquit," Dershowitz said.

"It has to be much higher than that. It has to be certainly like 90 percent likely before you can say there's no reasonable doubt. So, if I were on the jury, I would find reasonable doubt."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zimmerman-martin-trial-defense/2013/07/09/id/514186?s=al&promo_code=141DE-1#ixzz2YbYlGuE1

So, apparently, the defense is going to rest tomorrow, which, if I was on their team, I would insist on that decision.

When do the riots start?

A...

[ginny]

Adam, according to CNN, there where no nearby bushes for Trayvon to jump out of, and Zimmerman's so-called wounds didn't even need medical attention. I think he panicked at the sight of a non-white teenager and reacted badly and deadly. A kid should be able to walk the 'fancy' streets. Sorry, but I think Zimmerman was wrong.

Zimmerman, unfortunately, may be a good argument against a private, poor trained, police force.

[Dglgmut]

Adam, according to CNN, there where no nearby bushes for Trayvon to jump out of, and Zimmerman's so-called wounds didn't even need medical attention. I think he panicked at the sight of a non-white teenager and reacted badly and deadly. A kid should be able to walk the 'fancy' streets. Sorry, but I think Zimmerman was wrong.

Zimmerman, unfortunately, may be a good argument against a private, poor trained, police force.

He panicked at the sight of the teenager? So the punches had nothing to do with it?

At what point should you be allowed to defend yourself? Do you have to suffer permanent debilitating injuries first?

[Selene]

Adam, according to CNN, there where no nearby bushes for Trayvon to jump out of, and Zimmerman's so-called wounds didn't even need medical attention. I think he panicked at the sight of a non-white teenager and reacted badly and deadly. A kid should be able to walk the 'fancy' streets. Sorry, but I think Zimmerman was wrong.

Zimmerman, unfortunately, may be a good argument against a private, poor trained, police force.

Ginny:

Point by point:

1) Travon Martin was alleged moving from the Skittles dispensing business to his father's condo/apartment;

2) He did not take any path that could justify the route that would attract attention by a community watch volunteer;

3) No one, as Dershowitz emphasized has any clue what happened at the point of interaction between Travon and Zimmerman;

4) Testimony yesterday/today contradicted the prior testimony that the, as your question begging statement opined, that the "so-called wounds," didn't even need medical attention." and

5) Apparently, according to your selectively retained CNN information, there were no "bushes" for Travon to allegedly "jump out of." However, why would he, if he felt "threatened," not go directly to his dad's condo/apartment? Curious, don't you think?

I have more, However, I will await your response.

A...

[ginny]

"Paniced at the sight of a teenager." I already said Zimmerman acted badly. Do you really think no one panics at the sight of a black male teen?d t o

Hard to say when defense is appropriate. That's why I am for a trained police force. I haven't followed too closely. What is known about the kid's behavior that would warrant defensive action?

Adam:

What are skittles? Drugs? Do we know he dealt drugs? Should a private person take fatal action without proof or call the police?

What does the new medical report say? I heard it last week.

I'm ready for more.

[Selene]

"Panicked at the sight of a teenager." I already said Zimmerman acted badly. Do you really think no one panics at the sight of a black male teen?d t o

Hard to say when defense is appropriate. That's why I am for a trained police force. I haven't followed too closely. What is known about the kid's behavior that would warrant defensive action?

Adam:

What are skittles? Drugs? Do we know he dealt drugs? Should a private person take fatal action without proof or call the police?

What does the new medical report say? I heard it last week.

I'm ready for more.

Ginny:

Again, point by point:

1) a "teenager," who apparently was quite troubled. He was under the "influence" of ganja on the fatal night;

2) this "teenager" could have proceeded to his father's condo/apartment. However, he chose not to;

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skittles_%28confectionery%29

4) what do you do when the police are twenty minutes away? Die?

A...

Post Script:

I will not address your "bigoted" remark about "Do you really think no one panics at the sight of a black male teen?"

However, I will point you to the Reverend Jessie "I spit in the white man's soup" Jackson, who stated that:

“There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life,” Jesse Jackson said several years ago, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Jackson now says his quotation was “taken out of context.” The context, he said, is that violence is the inevitable byproduct of poor education and health care. But no amount of “context” matters when you fear that you are about to be mugged.

A...

[ginny]

Sorry to be argumentative.

Adam, I know Skittles are a candy. How do they relate?

Martin went to see his father. Nothing wrong with that.

He'd taken mj. What kid doesn't?

The two skuffled. How did it start? Did zimmerman call him out? Did Martin jump him? We don't know.

According to medics, "Paramedic Stacy Livingston, who responded to the shooting scene, testified Zimmerman had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head." As far as I know, the medics did NOT treat the superficial cuts. Hell, I could have done more damage than this kid.

How can the shooting be justified if no one knows what happened to start the fight. Possible scenario: Zimmerman harassed Martin. Martin got pissed and threw a punch. They ended up on the ground. Nothing here justifies shooting.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw a comment by Howard Kurtz that got me thinking.

From the angle of the media, all these big trials are nothing more than big honking soap-operas on a three-act scaffold mixed with sports.

Think about it.

Act 1 -- Pre-trial,

Act 2 -- Trial, and

Act 3 -- Final arguments, jury deliberation and verdict.

Major themes of justice, sex, racism, abortion, greed, and so on are always present. There are good guys and villains. Aristotle's formula of piling on the pity and fear until it erupts in a catharsis sits beautifully on this structure.

The soap opera plays out as plot turns and cliff-hangers in the relationships and manipulations, especially as egged on by the pundits, with speculations galore.

And there are clear winners and losers in the end. But before that, you get to root for one side or the other. The pundits keep score. They dissect performances and participants just like they do in sports. People place bets on this stuff. They take polls and provide other stats. And there is plenty of fan engagement. They fight with each other over it. Friends fall out. And, of course, there are victory parties in the end.

Ah yes, let's not forget the boutique. T-Shirts. Coffee mugs. And so on.

Right now it's Trayvon. But there was Jodi Arias, Kermit Gosnell, Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, Michael Jackson, O. J. Simpson--especially O. J. Simpson: The Return, and on and on.

This is a major entertainment format sitting right there under my nose and I did not perceive it like that until now. But that's all it is for the mainstream. Entertainment. Not news.

Granted, trials have this kind of nature. But the way the media has fictionalized and gamified these events with Hollywood build-ups and larger-than-life treatment, it's no wonder the metaphor is "circus," as in media circus. However, in the case of these mega-trials, the circus goes on and on and on for months if not years.

Here's the video that prompted me to think about this, sort of like a click in my mind where it all suddenly fell into place:

http://youtu.be/IQz7_-K85Ys

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry to be argumentative.

Adam, I know Skittles are a candy. How do they relate?

Martin went to see his father. Nothing wrong with that.

He'd taken mj. What kid doesn't?

The two skuffled. How did it start? Did zimmerman call him out? Did Martin jump him? We don't know.

According to medics, "Paramedic Stacy Livingston, who responded to the shooting scene, testified Zimmerman had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head." As far as I know, the medics did NOT treat the superficial cuts. Hell, I could have done more damage than this kid.

How can the shooting be justified if no one knows what happened to start the fight. Possible scenario: Zimmerman harassed Martin. Martin got pissed and threw a punch. They ended up on the ground. Nothing here justifies shooting.

If it would justify a policeman shooting, Zimmerman was justified. Ironically, the presence of the gun increases the justification--it's almost tautological--in order to prevent Martin from possibly getting the gun and shooting him. The prosecution is failing--has failed--seemingly, on reasonable doubt, but with juries you never know. The separate issue we tend to discuss here is outside criminal legal provenance: what were these people doing there and why were they doing it? The one with the best knowledge, the defendant, is the one who needs to keep his mouth shut. He will be sued, regardless, with lawyers taking that civil case to be payed by publicity, for no one is going to collect a dime. The civil suit will keep this discussion going without the consideration of the reasonable doubt standard.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I just saw a comment by Howard Kurtz that got me thinking.

From the angle of the media, all these big trials are nothing more than big honking soap-operas on a three-act scaffold mixed with sports.

Think about it.

Act 1 -- Pre-trial,

Act 2 -- Trial, and

Act 3 -- Final arguments, jury deliberation and verdict.

Major themes of justice, sex, racism, abortion, greed, and so on are always present. There are good guys and villains. Aristotle's formula of piling on the pity and fear until it erupts in a catharsis sits beautifully on this structure.

The soap opera plays out as plot turns and cliff-hangers in the relationships and manipulations, especially as egged on by the pundits, with speculations galore.

And there are clear winners and losers in the end. But before that, you get to root for one side or the other. The pundits keep score. They dissect performances and participants just like they do in sports. People place bets on this stuff. They take polls and provide other stats. And there is plenty of fan engagement. They fight with each other over it. Friends fall out. And, of course, there are victory parties in the end.

Ah yes, let's not forget the boutique. T-Shirts. Coffee mugs. And so on.

Right now it's Trayvon. But there was Jodi Arias, Kermit Gosnell, Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, Michael Jackson, O. J. Simpson--especially O. J. Simpson: The Return, and on and on.

This is a major entertainment format sitting right there under my nose and I did not perceive it like that until now. But that's all it is for the mainstream. Entertainment. Not news.

Granted, trials have this kind of nature. But the way the media has fictionalized and gamified these events with Hollywood build-ups and larger-than-life treatment, it's no wonder the metaphor is "circus," as in media circus. However, in the case of these mega-trials, the circus goes on and on and on for months if not years.

Here's the video that prompted me to think about this, sort of like a click in my mind where it all suddenly fell into place:

http://youtu.be/IQz7_-K85Ys

Michael

It's white vs black, never mind Zimmerman is as much Hispanic as white. The trial is an exercise in white guilt reverse racism; let's appease the media intellectuals and would-be rioters. All this stuff you've mentioned is a pile of frosting on an ugly political cake. I will not eat it.

--Brant

didn't watch the vid

[ginny]

Sorry to be argumentative.

Adam, I know Skittles are a candy. How do they relate?

Martin went to see his father. Nothing wrong with that.

He'd taken mj. What kid doesn't?

The two skuffled. How did it start? Did zimmerman call him out? Did Martin jump him? We don't know.

According to medics, "Paramedic Stacy Livingston, who responded to the shooting scene, testified Zimmerman had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head." As far as I know, the medics did NOT treat the superficial cuts. Hell, I could have done more damage than this kid.

How can the shooting be justified if no one knows what happened to start the fight. Possible scenario: Zimmerman harassed Martin. Martin got pissed and threw a punch. They ended up on the ground. Nothing here justifies shooting.

If it would justify a policeman shooting, Zimmerman was justified.

--Brant

I seem to be arguing with everyone, here. Brant, are you serious with the above? Any citizen has the same right as a civilian to shoot? Even cops need justification for discharge of weapon. We don't even know if it's self-defense. Repeat, IF the kid didn't do anything but give a punch, shooting is not justified.

Brant, with the above names you list, there was in all cases pretty demaging evidence (if maybe not conclusive) against the defendants. I agree the bleeping media is turning this into a white/black thing, but the facts still remain. What right did Zimmerman have to stop/hassle Martin in the first place, if tha t's what he did? Too many questions for me.

r

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All this stuff you've mentioned is a pile of frosting on an ugly political cake. I will not eat it.

Brant,

I see it as the contrary.

Of course I see the politics and racism, but I see this trial as simply today's frosting on a quirky side of human nature which often gets ugly.

The eternal call to gossip and bicker over the gossip.

Tomorrow there will be a new flavor of frosting, but the cake's core recipe will be the same.

As to racism (and its variants, reverse racism whatever the hell that is, white guilt, and all the rest), it still plays well as propaganda. This has been a festering sore in the American psyche for centuries. The only real cure is not to beat it, but to walk away from it.

Michael