The URL to this webpage is:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/custody-evaluator-testing/forensic-psychs-opine-stupidly-on-Zimmerman-case.html
Forensic Psychs Opining Stupidly
on the Zimmerman Case
(Are their comments generally indicative of experts who are expected to
gather and analyze information in an unbiased manner, understand
the requirements of the law, and opine only about what they know to be
a certainty based upon the facts?)
SUMMARY OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED (an unprovoked attack
on a man Trayvon Martin thought was a homosexual -- "creepy ass-cracker" aka "pervert" -- checking him out).
In answer to my own question, above: I don't think so. It's true that the below came from
casual conversation. But it's
casual conversation on a professional listserve with regard to a serious legal case. Moreover, one would think
that ways of thinking and ostensible training would spill over into "real life" to reduce the making of unwarranted
assumptions and spouting of illogical or baseless conclusions.
Given that we have complete access to the taped televised
trial, including exhibits and arguments outside of the jury, we can use
this as an interesting case study of, inter alia, the willingness
of forensic psychs to opine even though they have their facts wrong and
should know it. (Some of the below posts from the thread are
included only for context.)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:39:09 -0400
From: MM
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
I didn't follow all of the trial, but I wonder why there was no manslaughter
conviction if all that was needed was that he put himself in the situation
that caused the victim's death and neighborhood "watchers" are
instructed not to confront the victim/call the police/wait for them to
arrive and he was specifically instructed in this instance not to exit
the car/wait.
It would seem that those facts alone would have produced a manslaughter
verdict. Did the prosecution throw so much weak evidence at the jury in
the pursuit of higher charges that they focused the jury on what was wrong
with their case rather than what seems to be directly right? Again, I didn't
see it all, so this isn't an opinion, just a question.
There was no manslaughter conviction because
Zimmerman did NOT "put himself in the situation that caused" Trayvon Martin's
death. There was no evidence at all that Zimmerman ever "confronted"
Martin. Moreover, Zimmerman
already was out of his car and was attempting respond to the 911 dispatcher questions regarding
where Martin was located when the dispatcher (not "police") asked Zimmerman whether Zimmerman was following him and
suggested (not "ordered") "We don't need you to do that", to which Zimmerman replied
"Okay". Zimmerman did NOT at any time thereafter "follow" Martin.
[Read about the
media's irresponsibility in
promulgating this myth.]
All the evidence brought out at trial regarding what happened thereafter indicated
that Trayvon Martin (unseen) subsequently jumped Zimmerman and viciously
attacked him.
(By the way, what is this: "Neighborhood watchers are instructed not to confront the victim".)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:55:37 -0400
From: MM
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
How did the prosecution witnesses damage their case? If you don't mind
- this is a lot of info for a Sunday!
On balance, the facts elicited from virtually
every prosecution witness were consistent with the multiple statements
that had been given by Zimmerman indicating self-defense. Why? Because
this was a clear-cut case of, not "stand your ground", but common
law self-defense, which never should have been charged in the first place.
Seminole police and prosecutors found self-defense, and it was the false
race-baiting media circus
coupled with the inappropriate involvement and
opining of Obama that prompted the Florida governor to appoint special
prosecutor Angela Corey from another jurisdiction to investigate. Instead
of calling a Grand Jury, Corey filed an affidavit of information that omitted
exculpatory information and was misleading.
Date: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:03 AM
From: BB
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
The young lady who might have been worst for Zimmerman - testifying
that she heard (on the phone) Trayvon being attacked, was defensive on
the stand and admitted having lied several times, in prior statements
BB
The correct answer is that on balance, the
facts elicited from virtually every prosecution witness to the event were consistent
with the multiple statements that had been given by Zimmerman indicating
self-defense. In that respect, this trial was remarkable in that the prosecution
did not put on a "weak case", but put on virtually "no case". The prosecution was unable to provide evidence
to prove one single required element of its case beyond that Zimmerman shot his gun and it killed Trayvon
Martin. In most criminal trials, it is the defense who keeps attempting to recharacterize hard evidence as possibly
consistent with a speculative (but "reasonable") hypothesis (doubt) with regard to what that evidence shows. In this
highly unusual trial, it was the prosecutors who posited various speculations (as to which there was no evidence at all).
Given that the burden of
proof not only was on the State, but that prosecutors know before
bringing the case that it has to go beyond "preponderance
of the evidence", beyond "clear and convincing evidence", all the way to evidence that proves their case
"beyond a reasonable doubt", that this politically-motivated trial took place at all is astonishing.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:20:41 -0400
From: AU
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
It is dispiriting to see educated persons, professionally involved in
the criminal justice system, so readily sidetracked by the media circus
and the imperfect mechanics of jurisprudence this case demonstrated; insofar
as issues of guilt, innocence, justice or public safety are concerned the
trial was a ritualistic sideshow.
The fascination with details and outcomes of this trial may be compelling
to legal technicians. Yet regardless of the verdict, a fundamental problem
for a multicultural, and economically unbalanced civil society would still
exist: i.e., that of armed inadequate personalities compensating for their
ineffectuality by acting out their resentments on persons who, by dint
of their "otherness", or supposed undeserved advantages, are
attractive targets.
Both the shooter and his victim were set up to lose in a society which
glorifies machismo, profits from the oversupply of weapons, and misinforms
us (via sensationalistic news and entertainment media) about who really
runs things and how.
Practically speaking, while this fact may elude people obsessing over
the verdict in this case, any reasonably intelligent parent of a black
child, particularly a male child, who travels through or resides in predominantly
upper middle class neighborhoods is familiar with the dangers of "WALKING
WHILE BLACK". Black males in my comfortable suburban area frequently
(at least once a week) stopped, questioned, confronted, and occasionally
manhandled in such circumstances in my town which is in the Union stronghold
of Central NY. The difference is, the Neighborhood Watch up here is apt
to be unarmed. This is lucky, because, sometimes, the kid is likely to
be annoyed by the harassment and might react undiplomatically or, as he
is a kid, immaturely.
AU
Syracuse, NY
And the above-it-all-generalist-with-an-agenda jumps right into supporting the
story promulgated
by
that "media circus" he pretends
to be decrying. Talk about getting it wrong...
This case most assuredly did NOT demonstrate the "imperfect mechanics of jurisprudence".
A trial was held, and the only possible verdict correctly was
reached. And "race" had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. What this case
has demonstrated so far, however, is that ignorance and bias and willingness to spout and/or buy into propaganda
cross all demographic lines:
AU insinuates that Trayvon Martin was "profiled"
("walking while black" in an "upper middle class neighborhood").
In fact, had he paid attention to the "details" he disdains,
he would know that neither was the case. He also would know that what caused
Trayvon Martin's death was that Martin attacked Zimmerman, a triggering
event that, it would seem, would be fairly reasonable for parents to advise
their kids not to do. Had AU watched the trial, and listened to argument
outside of the jury presence, he also would know that Trayvon Martin used
drugs and had bragged about his prowess in engaging in other fights. AU
also insinuates that Zimmerman stopped, questioned, confronted, or perhaps
even manhandled Martin, none of which acts were supported by any evidence
in this case. Finally, it is the constant and unnecessary liberal pitypoo race-baiting blather like the above
that only furthers faux race issues such as the one that resulted in the trial in this case. That trial
wasn't "sideshow" for the man who
was attacked without cause and who defended himself.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:30:55 -0400
From: BB
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
In my small rural town, a 90-something, frail,
black male, riding a motorized wheelchair, was just yesterday stopped,
questioned, and searched for drugs.
BB
In sympatico responding to AU, BB -- a Florida psych who likes to
opine on law, and has written at least one article I'm aware of analyzing, somewhat incorrectly, HIPAA law --
now chimes in again to add some irrelevant hearsay to the race-baiting by AU. (Is he calling for
"profiling" by age or physical fitness instead of race? Does he know that cops can't just stop
and search anyone -- white, black, young, old, frail, or not, without probable cause to do so? Or is BB just
assuming there was none?)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:31:58 -0400
From: MM
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Yes. I was in a waiting room watching her testimony
and the woman next to me said, "You can tell a person by their friends
- I doubt Zimmerman went after that kid." I asked her how many of
her High School friends she was still friends with. It's scares me to think
about the real bases for decision making that people use, and how little
evidence and logic may matter. At APLS this last spring, one of the presenters
discussed her research in which a well reasoned opinion was pitted against
a weak one, withmore likeability going to the expert with the less valid
opinion - that's the one that swayed the mock jury. Very disturbing. We
put so much time and energy into formulating the criteria for valid opinions
and conducting FMHAs to abide by them, but in the end, how likeable we
are might be more important.
It totally scares me the real bases for decision-making that forensic psychs use,
and how little evidence and logic may matter! One most certainly can draw conclusions
"about a man based on the company he keeps". This wasn't
a friend of Trayvon Martin from two decades ago.
Be that as it may, the telephone friend's testimony wasn't discounted because she was a rude, recalcitrant nitwit.
In fact
that testimony simply provided no information that
was inconsistent with the defense's case, so this was not about her stupid demeanor or her
admitted multiple prior lies.
(But thanks MM for the admission that psychs get swayed by how likeable people are. We
already knew that, but honesty is refreshing.)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:04:36 -0400
From: LT
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Agreed. Not that my nearly 90-year-old mother
can be viewed as Everyman, but she believes Zimmerman is guilty because
of his flat affect. Upon probing her attribution, she explained that this
meant he was not to be trusted because he was controlling/hiding his true
thoughts and feelings. She observed that he didn't react to his not guilty
verdict. I do believe that jurors may apply this type of "logic"
to their decisions.
LT, PhD
NJ Psychologist
Perfect psych shit. Forget the evidence. Decide the case based on psychobabble --
Zimmerman's "flat
effect" notwithstanding that Zimmerman neither testified nor exhibited any such "flat effect".
Translation of this psych's comment: "I think Zimmerman's 'flat
effect' indicated guilt, applying my psychpertise, but since I really
wouldn't know a "flat effect" if I fell over one, I'll just float my ignoramus hypothesis as the
opinion of my 90-year-old mother and see if it flies -- or as a general pop-psych generic juror
thing, even though vis a vis the jurors it's so obviously inapplicable
in this case because the jurors found Zimmerman not guilty".
(By the way, the profile of the "average"
juror in Florida is: someone who is registered to vote and is probably not
a judge, cop, lawyer, currently practicing surgeon, or breastfeeding woman. And Zimmerman did react -- he
smiled in obvious relief at the verdict. But there is nothing about winning a Pyrrhic Victory to cheer about, and
given the race-baiting crowds out for blood, it's highly likely he was told by his lawyers to remember that Trayvon Martin is
still dead, and just sit quietly without expression not only through the trial but also
upon a verdict of acquittal.)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:58:06 -0700
From: JF
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
I routinely see cases where elderly black men
are stopped on the street by police and searched for drugs. In more than
a handful of these cases, drugs are found in their possession or at least
paraphernalia, which I am sure doesn't help. Sometimes, things really are
as they appear, unfortunately.
I can appreciate the "media side show"
commentary which i think is spot-on. I could vomit at all the uninformed
opinions about this case, particularly on social media, e.g., "outrage"
and "vindication" alike.
I share your nausea, JF, at the uninformed opinions. (What's "elderly" in your lexicon?)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:53:40 -0500
From: JK
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Well, I would read the statute on manslaughter
and then self defense and remember what the witness who was closest said
about what she saw. (From the Story quoted above in this thread).
"Through it all, though, the defense chipped
away at the prosecution's case. The resident with the best vantage point
of the fight described a "ground and pound" fight, with a person
in red or a light color on the bottom. Mr. Zimmerman wore a reddish jacket."
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement,
or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according
to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall
not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this
chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.084.
Self defense is an excusable homicide.
Most states have exclusions for using self defense.
If I get in a fight in Mo and I am the aggressor then i cannot use Self
defense. I can argue self defense if break off and I make that clear. (FL
may vary)
In this case there is no evidence that Zimmerman
was the aggressor nor is there any evidence that he attacked prior to having
his nose broke and head bashed against the sidewalk. He was flat on his
back when he fired.
At what point would you allow someone to defend
themselves?
Almost nice, but: the witness who was "closest"
was a "he", not a "she"; and the defense didn't really
have to "chip away at the prosecution's case" (that phrase is repeatedly parrotted media blather)
because the prosecution never had adequate facts to start with -- only innuendo, speculation
and hypothesis insufficient to prove guilt in a criminal trial. All the defense had to
do was bring in actual evidence.
Of note, in this case the prosecution didn't even have preponderance of the evidence.
They had nothing, and the trial never should have been held in the first
place. That is what makes this trial so charming for the little case study on this web page. The case wasn't a
close call, and it couldn't have gone -- by law -- any way other than how it did. Had the jurors
wrongly found guilt, it would have been a slam-dunk reversal on appeal. Let's ask outselves why so few
ostensibly smart and educated persons who think they belong in the courtroom seem to know that.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:53:49 -0400
From: AU
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
When they mind their own business and leave the
kids alone?
AU the progressive race-relations reliever pipes up again to the effect
that we should "leave alone"
-- and not be suspicious of -- "kids" (or 20-somethings because who
can tell from a distance) such as those who in fact committed
the eight recent prior burglaries in the complex, including one in
which the residents were home. Or maybe he is saying that we should just not ever find them suspicious
if they are black.
Never mind that a large portion of crimes, particularly
home invasion burglaries, drugs, and violent crimes, are committed by adolescent males under age 18, and that the majority
of these crimes are committed by males under age 30. Trayvon Martin
not only was near six-feet tall, and athletic, but at age 17 also was old enough to join the military. But perhaps
AU is imagining that cute little 12-year-oldish Trayvon picture that the media circulated -- the one taken before
he got the gold teeth, before he began bragging about his fighting prowess,
before was found in possession of stolen property, before he began using drugs, before he went asking around himself for firearms, before he put
pornographic pictures on his cell phone in a hidden double-passworded directory, and
before he began calling himself "No Limit Nigga" on his social media pages.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:24:02 -0400
From: JR
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Self defense is a complicated issue. Juries sometimes
find against the facts for a variety of reasons. In Michigan, if you initiate
the confrontation, you may not claim self defense. If you have an avenue
of retreat other than on your property or in your home, you cannot claim
self defense.
I had a case where a young man (A) was followed
by a man in a car (B). "B" got out and chased "A" on
foot. "A" on foot, out of breath, stopped, pulled a knife and
turned on t"B" who pulled a revolver and shot "A" dead
center in the forhead from close range. "B" claimed self defense.
There was no doubt in the jury's mind that "A" would have harmed
"B" with the knife. The jury found "B" who initiated
the chase and shot the young man guilty of second degree murder and he
received a 20 yr sentence. The appellate courts upheld the conviction.
There was another case in this same court. "A"
standing at a bar when "B" walks in sees "B", pulls
a 15 shot semi-automatic pistol, empties the magazine at "A".
"A" is shot several times but still alive according to witnesses
when "B" reloads another magazine and empties it into "A"
at short range and kills "A". "B" claims self defense
because of a long standing feud. The jury agrees finds "B" not
guilty and one juror reports that because of the standing feud and "A"
probably would have done the same to "B".
Self defense is a complicated issue. Juries sometimes
find against the facts for a variety of reasons. I believe all the "analysis"
that goes into these cases by the media is little more than speculation.
I doubt that even the best forensic analysis could isolate the specific
causes of the verdict in 12 or in this case 6 jurors.
JR
Sorry, self-defense is not that complicated of an issue. and the jury here did not
"find against the facts". Maybe sometimes they do (OJ Simpson, e.g.), but mostly they don't.
Be that as it may, what, pray tell, do these anecdotes from a different
state (even assuming the summaries are accurate -- a huge assumption),
have to do with the Zimmerman case? Especially the first one, which appears
to feed into and enhance false perceptions that in the Zimmerman case there
was a "chase". Self defense is not necessarily complicated. Juries (this jury?)
only rarely find against the facts. JR posits that even a forensic (!) analysis couldn't
isolate the specific "causes" of the verdict in this case. It's always a crapshoot? (Or just the cases
you've been involved with, JR?)
This is nonsense. Sometimes things are indeed simple.
The Zimmerman jury found the way it did because that was the only reasonable finding that could be made,
given that the prosecution
had virtually no evidence. (But thank you JR for confirming that forensic psychs wouldn't
be able to figure out whether decisions were appropriate or not based on the facts and rationale for them. Do you opine on
ultimate facts in any cases, JR? Do any domestic violence work? Yikes...)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:24:55 -0400
From: BB
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
I'm probably the last person who should pass judgment,
and, I think we should also realize that email lists are VERY susceptible
to loss of both direct and meta-communication. IOW, what you hear may not
be what I meant. In addition, what I said may not even be what I meant.
So I think we should consider what other people say here with a drop of
generosity and compassion - it might not truly represent their full understanding
of an issue. If you feel personally offended by a person, ask them, backchannel,
what they meant by what they said.
BTW, I did not express an opinion on the matter,
nor do I have one. I don't feel as though I've watched enough of the testimony
to get an adequate sense of the case against him or his defense. I truly
don't know if I would have voted G or NG.
I think it will mean something to a few folk,
like you Marcia. In terms of a culture-wide resonance, I think it will
quickly fade in the background of violence and gun violence that pervades
our country.
BB
Translation: "I don't know anything, so don't
hold me to it because I'm not opining, even though I yammered opinions above,
but I feel compelled to continue yammering my opinions anyway because I don't know what I'm
talking about and I don't want anyone to disagree with me. I think, I think, I meant,
I meant, I think, you feel, I don't feel, I don't know, I think,
I think..." (Right, sure. Not relaying "opinions".)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:50:03 -0600
From: RM
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
The following statement was issued by Richard
Cohen, President and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, following
the verdict in State of Florida v. George Zimmerman:
07/13/2013 PRESS STATEMENT from the Southern Poverty
Law Center in Response to Verdict in State of Florida v. George Zimmerman
"They always get away." These were the
words George Zimmerman uttered as he followed
and later shot Trayvon Martin -- words that
reflected his belief that Trayvon was one of "them," the kind
of person about to get away with something. How ironic these words sound
now in light of the jury verdict acquitting Zimmerman.
Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman is free. Who
was the one who got away?
Can we respect the jury verdict and still conclude
that Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon?
I think so, even if we buy Zimmerman's story
that Trayvon attacked him at some point. After all, who
was responsible for initiating the tragic chain of events? Who was following
whom? Who was carrying a gun? Who ignored the police urging that he stay
in his car? Who thought that the other was
one of "them," someone about to get away with something?
The jury has spoken, and we can respect its conclusion
that the state did not prove its case beyond
a reasonable doubt. But we cannot fail to
speak out about the tragedy that occurred in Sanford, Florida, on the night
of February 26, 2012.
Was race at the heart of it? Ask
yourself this question: If Zimmerman had seen a white youth walking in
the rain that evening, would he have seen him as one of "them,"
someone about to get away with something?
We'll never really know, of course. But
we can seriously doubt it without assuming that Zimmerman is a racist in
the conventional sense of the word.
Racial bias reverberates in our society
like the primordial Big Bang. Jesse Jackson made the point in a dramatic
way when he acknowledged that he feels a sense of relief when the footsteps
he hears behind him in the dead of night turn out to belong to white feet.
Social scientists who study our hidden biases
make the same point in a more sober way with statistics that demonstrate
that we are more likely to associate black people with negative words and
imagery than we are white people. It's an association that devalues the
humanity of black people, particularly black youth like Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman probably saw race the night of
February 26, 2012, just like so many of us probably would have.
Had he not, Trayvon probably would be alive today.
The jury has spoken. Now, we
must speak out against the racial bias that still infects our society and
distorts our perception of the world. And
we must do something about it.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama
with offices in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi, is a nonprofit
civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to
seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information,
see www.splcenter.org.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/press-statement-from-the-southern-poverty-law-ce
nter-in-response-to-verdict-in-sta#.UeIj4OMEkHw.twitter
Very respectfully,
RM, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist / Certified Neuropsychologist / Forensic Psychology
sent from my iPhone
Translation: "I know nothing, and don't want you to disagree with me, so I'll
just appeal to "authority" and convey my uninformed opinion contributing to the race-baiting via a
factually incorrect propaganda piece put out by a political activist organization".
An activist organization that in recent years has lost more and more credibility
The items that are false or misleading in the
above press release are colored in blue. Zimmerman
did not "follow" Martin at any relevant point in the events.
Nor did he utter "they always get away" as he "followed
him and later shot him", which implies a continuous ill-will state of mind.
There also is absolutely no indication that when Zimmerman first noticed
Trayvon Martin and telephoned police, Zimmerman even knew or recognized the race of the teenager.
It was only in response to the dispatcher's later direct question asking what race
the person was, that Zimmerman said "I think he's black". There is no evidence
anywhere that Zimmerman -- who himself is part Hispanic, part Jewish, and
part black -- is "racist in the conventional sense of the word"
(whatever the hell that is). For a more intelligent discussion of "racial"
(or ethnic) bias in society, read "The Economics and Politics of Race:
An International Perspective", by Thomas Sowell.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:26:39 -0400
From: LT
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
People seem so quick to point to race as underlying
Zimmerman's statement about "they" who always get away. I wonder
how well a different race teenager with a hoodie and tattoos would have
fared. "Young punks" might be a more accurate referent. Just
a thought.
LT, PhD
NJ Psychologist License
"I wonder
how well a different race teenager with a hoodie and tattoos would have
fared." Do you really?
Perhaps no better than Trayvon Martin did if this hypothetical teenager, instead
of just going home like a decent normal person, had circled back, then laid in wait to jump and punch
out another person who in fact (not just "legally")
was doing nothing wrong but reporting to police that he saw a suspicious
stranger who appeared to be loitering and who in fact matched the profile
of all of the recent prior burglars in the complex.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:26:07 -0500
From: KC
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
All of what you say is
true, AU, but I am posting on this thread as primarily just another
human being with concers about the laws states are coming up with, the
racism still obviously still evident in the U.S. Yes, being a young blabk
male in this society is dangerous and has gotten more so with all the gun
laws in the various states.
KC, Psy.D.
IL
Never mind that this case in fact had nothing
to do with "race". But let's now use this as the opportunity
to push our anti-gun advocacy. And never mind that had Zimmerman not had a
gun, he might now be maimed or dead himself. This wasn't a lynching. This
was self-defense.)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:32:40 -0500
From: MT
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
So the gun laws in the United States are making
it less safe for black men? What gun laws are that?
You live in Illinois, Dr. KC... a state that
has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. How's that working for
young black men in Chicago?
MT
Minneapolis
Don't expect to get a straight answer to your question, MT...
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:59:20 -0500
From: KC
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Actually what you say is not what I said. Not
so simple.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:36:14 +0000
From: "DC
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Strict is a relative term. From an international
perspective, we have no strict gun laws in the U.S.
DC, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Education
VA
From an international perspective, we also
have the Second Amendment. Also the First Amendment, the rest of the Bill
of Rights, an unparalleled constitution and justice system and... oh, never
mind. Bad America, fie, shame, and how we stink compared with, say, those
many terrific countries with near-absolute gun bans and rampant mass killings
of the population (and all those great equal rights laws -- not), such
as in South America, the Middle East and Africa.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:39:31 -0500
From: KW
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
So, let's all carry guns. Then we can murder any
who protest when we decide to harrass them. Make sense? If you're gonna
bully, do it right, yes? Take after the govt. (read: police state) as your
role model. What frog (read: American populace) notices when you turn up
the heat to a boil? Organized and individual anarchy dwelling side by side.
What a trip! We'll morph into Egyptians!
KW, PhD
Clinical & Forensic Psychologist
IL
This comment, in the context of this thread, stupidly implicitly
assumes and promotes the falsehood that Zimmerman
was harassing or bullying Trayvon Martin. KW then compounds the swill by launching into reduc
ad absurdum illogic. He just had to opine -- why? (My guess: wanted to jumpstart the anti-gun mobwagon tangent that
newly reared with promise to coopt the thread.)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:42:32 -0500
From: MT
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
Huh?
MT
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:46:40 -0400
From: BB
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
I'm all in - what do you recommend - AK or kalishnakof?
BB
Another sort of response, indicative of willingness
to jump on bandwagons, stir pots, and engage in unthinking group
rah-rahism. Let's remember that a law-abiding man was attacked, injured,
screaming (and no one came to his direct aid), and fired -once- under circumstances
in which a police officer would have emptied his weapon into the assailant.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:04:36 -0400
From: JR
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
A young man visiting an upscale neighborhood walks
to the store and while returning, is followed by a man in a car, then the
man gets out of his car carrying a pistol and follows the young man. The
young man stops and "stands his ground". In all this discussion,
I have not heard anything about Trevon Martin having the right to stand
his ground.
Two points here.
1. This scenario should be considered evidence
to support the idea that there are multiple levels of justice in this country.
2. When two people get into a dispute and "both
stand their ground" where is law and order?
It's hard to know where to begin to address
this incredibly ignorant opinion. It wasn't an "upscale neighborhood". It was a lower middle-class community
with a diverse ethnic/racial population. (If "upscale" -- read: white -- is the assumption
gleaned from "gated community" take note that there are even "gated community" trailer parks in Florida.)
In addition, contrary to JR's characterization of the events,
Trayvon Martin was not merely walking home, as in "on the sidewalk and walking". Zimmerman found him suspicious because Martin
was apparently loitering on the grass near residential buildings --
in the dark, on a rainy night, and where persons matching his same description recently had committed burglaries.
In addition, Zimmerman did not get out of his car "carrying
a pistol" (which implies that he was overtly wearing or wielding it), let alone follow Trayvon
Martin in that manner -- or, apparently, at all, while on foot.
In addition, the "stand
your ground" law had nothing whatsoever to do with this case, which
was common law self-defense. And Trayvon Martin -- an athlete who, according
to the sullen nincompoop he was talking with on the cellphone, was
"outside his daddy fiance house" -- either somehow couldn't manage in
four minutes to traverse a few hundred yards to just go home (assuming he in fact wasn't "outside his
daddy fiance house") or else took that four minutes to return from "outside his daddy fiance house" to
go back to the "T" area where he attacked Zimmerman.
(Rachel Jeantel claims, now enjoying
her post-trial media limelight,
that Trayvon was "afraid" to go home because he thought Zimmerman was a "rapist".
Were there were no locks on
the condo door? Or did Trayvon have no access to a phone to call police? Oh wait...)
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman ever even got the chance to say anything
to Martin before the attack occurred.
Contrary to JR's blathering post,
all evidence indicated that after Trayvon Martin indicated his own ill-will
("creepy ass cracker following me" in apparent reference to Zimmerman while still
in his vehicle), Martin bounded off, then circled back, watched, waited, and
finally jumped Zimmerman, whom he proceeded to punch and continue to attack even in the presence of a third
party. Moreover,
if the trial statements of Rachel Jeantel, the cell-phone
woman have any truth, then Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman because Martin thought
Zimmerman was a gay man
scoping him. "Creepy ass-cracker"
isn't a racial slur, but an anti-homosexual slur.
Trayvon Martin
attacked George Zimmerman unprovoked because when Martin saw Zimmerman slow down in his vehicle,
then pull ahead of him and park
at the clubhouse,
Martin "profiled" Zimmerman as a gay man, i.e. an "ass-cracker",
who was checking him out, perhaps to pick him up, and
Martin thought that he'd give that ass-cracker (or ass cracka) a good whupping. The media, hell-bent on its racial
story, ignores this.
"Cracker" does not refer here merely to "a white man" -- with "creepy ass" being some kind of modifier.
The noun is "ass-cracker", and facile liar Jeantel testified in court that it meant "pervert",
although post-trial
(e.g. Piers Morgan interview) the newly-minted linguist ignored the "ass" part and conveniently
asserted that "cracka" (wrong noun) refers to a cop.
There was no evidence that Martin was "afraid" or that he thought Zimmerman was a cop.
Rather, the evidence indicated that
Martin decided to beat the crap out of a creepy gay guy (perhaps egged on by Jeantel, which would explain her
subsequent odd behaviors, such as avoiding the funeral, and having a friend
write a letter to Martin's mother, whom Jeantel otherwise was avoiding).
Finally, additional evidence, which the defense was not permitted
to bring to the jury, but which otherwise came out, included, among other things, Trayvon Martin's history of two
criminal-related
school suspensions in the past six months (one drug-related, and the
other for having been found with stolen jewelry and a burglary tool), and
his bragging about having got into multiple fights, and how punching someone in the nose
by surprise immediately gives the aggressor a fight advantage.)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:24:36 -0700
From: km
Subject: Re: zimmerman NG
On Jul 13, 2013, at 7:51 PM, RM wrote:
I wonder if Zimmerman might lose a suit for wrongful death.
he wont be the defendant. the deep pocket here
is the hoa. they should be checking with their insurance agent.
rkm
The HOA's insurance company reportedly paid
out a couple million dollars to the Martin parents and lawyer before the
case even went to criminal trial (although since this information comes
from the major media, there is a fifty percent chance that it is wrong.)
Was "justice" served? Justice was NOT served. Discounting the unnecessary cost to the taxpayer, and the media incitement
hoping for juicy riots and similar gravy, an unnecessary criminal trial, held when there is no reasonable prospect
of a different outcome, is a denial of justice. Prosecutors are charged with the obligation to be neutral, and to effect
justice. For the man who was attacked and had to defend himself so traumatically, consider
the financial cost of that trial, and the psychic cost of losing his freedom for nearly 18 months (ankle monitor,
interference with school and work), not to mention the psychological pain of the whole ordeal.
Of more minor note, perhaps, consider that
the whole world now knows all about Zimmerman's financial situation (such as that he had to get help
to buy suits for court), his medical issues (that he went to the doctor to treat high blood pressure and for
constipation), and his physical issues (that the proprietor of the gym he went to thought he was essentially an obese
wuss who after a year of "training" still couldn't throw a proper punch at the punching bag).
But not so minor is the deficit to Zimmerman's lifetime reputation, all the crap that he and his family
will have to endure, such as for years they will
have to look over their shoulders for incensed morons who got unnecessarily spun up because
politicians, race-baiters, and media were moved by ulterior motives, and because so many stupid people seem unable to
get the correct facts. In addition, notwithstanding the trial, supposedly
to get out those facts, it is patently obvious that even people who are supposed to be educated, including these
psychs right here, as well as
the major media and biased political groups, forever will keep spouting libelous falsehoods about the case.
It is, moreover, interesting to me that no one -- including the child custody so-called mavins on this
forensic psych listserve -- has asked why a kid who repeatedly was suspended from school
for criminal acts
was out and about sashaying around unsupervised on a
vacation with his cell phone. Why? Because a "kid" died, and it would be mean to imply that the parents were negligent?
Yes, it's all terrible. But it's still not "justice" for Zimmerman, a man who was attacked and lawfully defended himself,
to have had
to go through the misery of an unwarranted accusation of murder pushed by the apparently
still-unappeased politically- and economically-motivated machinations of others. In February 2012, how many hundreds of other people
were attacked, beat up, robbed, maimed, mutilated, or killed, but didn't make the news because they didn't have a gun, and didn't
defend themselves? And the DOJ political crap continues.
Meanwhile, in the interests of "justice": it's long past the time to get the forensic psychs out of the court system. Because when they come in after the fact, and they don't have time to do original research
as to all those "details", they still don't have the first clue as to who would have that information and would convey it
to them in an unbiased way. Here are two, by the way: Cornell clinical law professor
William Jacobson and defense attorney Mark O'Mara:
Here's another -- Larry Elder:
|
