In Reply: Perhaps 911 dispatchers need to rethink how they "suggest" that wannabe heroes and morons not put themselves in danger by approaching or following the potentially dangerous criminals they're calling 911 about

Revised and extended, in reply to a whole lotta back and forth about the 911 dispatcher and George Zimmerman at the post Can Anyone Verify These Disturbing Allegations About Trayvon’s Family? : The Other McCain:

Hopefully 911 (emergency and non) throughout the country will rethink the best way to talk to people who haven't got the good sense to understand that "we don't need you to do that, sir" is a "suggestion" that callers not put themselves in further danger by approaching the potential criminals they're calling about. It's not illegal to be a moron, but neither party would've been injured if only Zimmerman understood, and had listened to the guy with a whole lot of experience dealing with first responders and potentially dangerous situations...though no, he was under no legal obligation to do so.

While they're at it, they probably ought to consider rephrasing how they ask which direction the potential criminal went, perhaps including the phrase "from where you are now, and please don't go after the man/woman/group you're telling me may be dangerous criminals," in deference to those same kinda morons.

Based on the evidence available and the laws as they stand, Zimmerman could not be convicted. Also, he didn't commit a hate crime. But--like Christopher Serino says, Zimmerman ultimately could've avoided this whole thing--not been hit, and not killed anyone--if only he had done things differently, either waiting in his car for the police (which the dispatcher also gently "suggested,") or at least approaching Martin differently, perhaps saying he was part of the neighborhood watch, and saying that Martin seemed unsure of which house he was looking for. While that doesn't matter criminally (though I think it should), it hopefully will matter civilly.
---

Posted Tuesday, 7/16/2013, 8:25 AM

In Reply: Staying Away From Unknown, Suspicious Individuals Is Smart...and Lessens the Possibility of Confrontation and Subsequent Need for Self-Defense

In reply to the following comment at the post, Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

I appreciate you taking the time to address me on this- I read your piece as recommended by Jer, and found it to be better than the other one, by far, but you're still off base. I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time around today's urban youth. You've made suppositions based on emotion, or feelings, or initial biased reporting, or whatever causes you to believe that Zimmerman was "creepy" and that Martin was provoked into committing aggravated battery. Fine. You've got a soft spot for what you think is idyllic youth. But it's misguided and unrealistic.

I'm not sure which neighborhood watch guidelines you're suggesting he didn't follow, but the Sanford guidelines are here: ttp://axiomamnesia.com/Trayvon... Maybe you can be more specific.

The very purpose of the neighborhood watch program is to observe and report. One of the suspicious activities noted in the guidelines is running. So tell me, if you're driving a vehicle through your neighborhood, and you observe a person dressed like several others who've been involved in a spate of recent crime in your neighborhood, AND while trying to drive by for a better look, said suspicious person moves in between houses AND you are unable to continue follow due to the lack of roadway AND you lose site of that suspicious person AND you have completed or are involved in on-going training as a neighborhood watch component, would you not exit your vehicle to try and ascertain where the person was going as you're on the phone with police trying to give them a description of said suspicious person? ("Uh sorry, he took off. Nope. No clue where he went. In a house? Maybe. I don't know. What was he wearing? Uh, could be a sweatjacket, maybe one of those hoodies. Not sure. Lost him as I was dialing.") Well, some might not, but others surely would. I would. Following and confronting, however, are two very different things.

The Zimmerman call to police has been thoroughly dissected from a time and location standpoint. Maybe you're not privy to some of that. Here is a pretty detailed summation: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony

For some reason, you're giving all of the benefit of the doubt to the 17 year old over the 28 year old. You're suggesting that Zimmerman provoked confrontation without a shred of evidence to indicate that. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle a considerable distance from where he reported Martin's location, and the actual confrontation took place at a location that required Martin to turn back toward Zimmerman. A scared kid wouldn't have done that. A kid who thought the big bad -potentially armed- wolf who was out to harm him, wouldn't have done that. He was closer to the front door of his temporary residence than he was either Zimmerman or the location of the altercation. Martin came back looking to confront Zimmerman. Remember, Martin is no stranger to fighting. And now we know he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him in what was described as MMA-style "ground and pound". Zimmerman had very obvious injuries of this type of beating while Martin only had one gunshot wound. This kid wasn't scared, he was the aggressor.

Throwing a punch at someone is an assault. Connecting with it is battery. You do not have the right to assault and batter someone that is asking you questions. You do not have the right to batter someone whom you fear. And there is no indication that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact. I would challenge your assertions as to morality.

Zimmerman may ultimately be convicted for his actions that night, but the well is so severely poisoned at this point -with threats of violence quite prevalent if he's acquitted (http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/)- that jurors feeling some sense of self-preservation might end up influencing their decisions. But everything that has been entered into testimony to this point has backed up Zimmerman's claims from the outset.
---

You missed the "h" in http on your first link, and even searching the site, I can't find the Sanford Neighborhood Watch Handbook (it's also been removed from the Sanford.gov site that most bloggers referencing it linked to initially), but I'd be very surprised if Sanford's handbook doesn't match what most most say: Do not follow a suspect, do not confront a suspect, and do not patrol while armed. (one example: Neighborhood Watch 101: How to patrol - St. Louis Crime | Examiner.com)

Even trained, armed police officers seldom go after a suspect individual without back-up. George reported the suspicious activity--including the fact that the suspicious person ran out of sight...and the dispatcher told him that they didn't need for him to follow the suspicious individual. So, while some might, and you say you would, it's awful foolish and against neighborhood watch policy and police department want or need for a civilian to follow an unknown suspect into a dark area on foot...in part because "following" can very easily lead to "confrontation," even if the latter is not intended.

The evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin is clear, and not in dispute, even by Zimmerman. One can assume that Martin might've doubled back on Zimmerman, but there's no actual evidence or testimony to that effect... (I don't know where the guy at the wagist link is getting his info, but not even he backs up his claim that Martin went up to his step mom's house & doubled back with anything other than his own words.)

I contend that a scared individual (kid or otherwise) would--and would be smart to--stay away from unknown suspicious individuals. Martin did that for the majority of the timeline. Zimmerman did not. Sure, it is possible that Martin chose fight when flight didn't work for him--Zimmerman kept coming--and that he is responsible for the first punch, and for being the better fighter overall, too... And yes, if Martin threw the first punch--even if he believed it was the only way to get this creep to stop following him--Martin was guilty of assault. But if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch guidelines, police suggestions, or even just good old common sense, neither would've thrown any punches or fired any shots.

On edit: My point isn't that I think Zimmerman (or Martin) actually were creepy, but that each painted a false picture of the other as creepy and up to no good, and behaved as though those images were accurate. On one hand, it's probably safer to be suspicious of strangers behaving unusually, these days (whether it's following you, looking in windows, loitering, etc), but it sure would've helped if either had just approached and asked for the time or offered to help, or something...
---

Posted Sunday, June 30, 2013, 2:00 AM

Previously: In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

In Reply: "Over a year later...I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin"

In reply to the following comment at the post: Open Thread Friday | NewsBusters:

The Sanchez piece can't be taken seriously. Every supposition the guy makes is based on his belief that the entire incident was predicated entirely on Zimmerman's perceived hatred for blacks. In it, Martin has done nothing wrong - victim from the outset.

The other one tries to put the race element on the back burner, but then has the nerve to posit this little gem:

(I have to say, I suspect that of the two scenarios, Trayvon hitting Zimmerman first, in an effort to avoid imminently getting robbed, kidnapped, or raped seems more plausible to me... ...and that makes me very sad to imagine this kid scared, fighting for his life--and ultimately losing it--over the bad judgement of Zimmerman, and there will be no justice for his family, besides...)

Let me tell you something- the 6'-1" teenager was not in anyway concerned that he was going to be "kidnapped" or "raped" (are you freakin kidding me?) by the 5'-8" "heavyset" stranger.

I broke this whole thing down last year. Martin was a punk-assed kid who acted toward a "white" authority figure exactly the way he was taught in the environment he was raised. Zimmerman shot him in an effort to save his own life. Thug attacks wannabe cop, wannabe cop shoots thug. End of story. - bkeyser: Friday, June 28, 2013, 7:22 PM
---

bkeyser: I'm the guy who wrote the latter post. I don't know exactly what specific crimes Trayvon might/might not've been worried about--perhaps you're right that kidnap or rape were not among them, though I don't see either as being quite so far-fetched as you seem to believe they are--but the fact that he was larger and stronger in no way proves he was not worried that the creep following him was "up to no good" illegality of one sort or another... particularly a creep that might be--and as it turns out, was--armed. Whatever their relative sizes and weights, the person being followed is often going to imagine the worst of the stranger pursuing them.

Over a year later and I still don't know if there's any criminality here...but I still believe George Zimmerman's actions make him morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. Had George listened to the police dispatcher who suggested he not follow the stranger, or paid attention to Neighborhood Watch guidelines about confronting "suspect" persons (or about being armed while acting in a neighborhood watch capacity at all--while I'm not sure I agree, those are their guidelines), or even gun owner common sense about looking for trouble unnecessarily, both Trayvon and George would've lived through that night unharmed. Trayvon spent most of the time during this incident trying to get away from the suspicious creep following him. George spent most of that same time moving closer to the guy he thought was suspicious and up to no good. Whether he meant to or not--and I still suspect not--I believe George Zimmerman made the situation worse and provoked the confrontation that ultimately took place. Even if Trayvon did throw the first punch and was winning the fight up until George shot him, his actions defending himself from what he thought was a creepy stranger following him seem far more morally understandable to me than George's, going after and confronting a suspicious stranger who he believed might be on drugs and up to no good, especially knowing the police were already on their way... YMMV...
---

Posted Saturday, June 29, 2013, 5:46 PM

Links:
Wingnuts and Moonbats: Trayvon Martin: My Hypothesis As To What Happened

Trayvon Martin: The death that united America to oppose prosecutorial inaction - New York Public Policy | Examiner.com

Homophobia inherent in macho bullshit

Maybe it's because I've been writing alot about the issue of gay marriage over on the political blog (& elsewhere), but I was kinda struck by the nasty implications of an incident that happened yesterday at my job.

Due to illness (see below), I had to call in sick to work on Saturday. The kid who runs the place (22?, 23?) was busy, & I was feeling crappy, so the call was short & to the point. "I won't be in." "OK... Feel better."

Afterward, I realized I'd forgotten to let him know I had an appointment Wednesday, & couldn't be there then either, so I sent an e-mail to inform him. Because I had just called out sick & was now asking for MORE time, I titled the e-mail "That [repsac] has a lot of balls..." (We're a pretty informal company, & besides, we're closing soon anyway... Even if such a subject header is either in bad taste (yeah, I suppose it is) or a breech of the computer policy (perhaps not... They tend not to make/enforce too many rules), it's not likely they're gonna fire me for it, given the short time we have left...)

So yesterday, this kid asks me "What was up with that e-mail title? Are you friggin' gay, or something? I thought you were hittin' on me..."

I was quite taken aback, & couldn't at first figure out whether he was just too stupid to understand the phrase "a lot of balls," or just trying to puff up his own diminutive manhood, again. (He's about 5'3", & appears to have a raging case of Napoleon complex as a result of years of abuse about it. Far too many of his stories are testosterone-laden adventures involving women he's had, or men he's beaten, literally or figuratively.) After explaining the former (yes, he had heard the phrase before & knew what it meant, but seemingly chose to willfully misunderstand it anyway, for effect, I'd imagine), I pointed out that if the word "balls" made him think about gay men & being hit on, that spoke to where his mind was at, not mine...

It wasn't until later that I began to comprehend the homophobia inherent in what he'd said (& I confess, in my retort to him, as well...)

Golden Rule of "Steves" (or Johns, or Richards)

I'm with Doctor Awesome... Keeping it in your pants except when absolutely necessary is the way to go...

But there aren't any clear guidelines for proper etiquette posted anywhere. Nobody has told these old men that they aren't in WWII fighting on the German front anymore, so they can put some clothes on. So I'm developing what I'll refer to as the Golden Rule of Steves. We all know the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Modifying this for locker rooms, I'd say we should do unto other Steves as you would have done unto your Steve. If you don't want to be constantly subjected to random Steves as you are getting dressed, then don't subject other people to your Steve while they are getting dressed. Very practical, and very considerate.

Let's look at the very important First Corollary of the Golden Rule of Steves, the No Contact Rule. It goes without saying that there should be no physical contact of any kind. But there also should be no eye contact either. Pretend that Steves are like the sun, and that looking directly at them will blind your retinas for life. This is out of respect...you wouldn't want another man staring at you like next weeks' winning lottery numbers are written there, would you? Another aspect of the no contact rule is verbal. If you are naked, or even partially exposed, there should be no words exchanged until you are covered again. That rules out conversation at the urinal, for instance. There are some good reasons to be naked, but talking at length about the game last night is not one of them. Put your drawers on!

Read the whole piece here: To Every Man A Manswer: Golden Rule of Steves