I think it’s important that George Zimmerman has had a trial.
I don’t know if George Zimmerman is guilty of murder under Florida’s laws or not. That’s partly a subjective determination which can only properly be made by a judge or jury. Martin’s death was not so clear-cut that a cop or prosecutor ought to have decided that Zimmerman should face no consequences. In our system, that decision is, and should be, made in a courtroom.
Given the US’s historic and ongoing racism, I think it’s reasonable to particularly fear such decisions being made by cops or prosecutors in cases where the person killed was a young black boy. It is reasonable to wonder, when a clearly innocent, unarmed, black kid is shot to death and the police decide no charges are needed, if the same decision would have been reached if the body were white.
That all remains true if Zimmerman is found “not guilty,” which strikes me as the most likely outcome (and one I’d probably vote for myself, if I were on the jury). From the progressive, anti-racist point of view, victory doesn’t require a guilty verdict. Even in a hypothetical perfectly non-racist system, injustice would still happen, and sometimes people would get away with murder. This is because our justice system, when it’s working properly, is and should be biased in favor of the dependent defendant.
I don’t blame people for being unhappy with Zimmerman being found not guilty (if he is found not guilty), or for correctly seeing it as part of a pattern in which black lives are taken less seriously by our justice system. But I also think that, given the facts of this case, it wouldn’t require racial bias for the jury to find that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Russell Simmons writes:
Even with this important day coming soon, I remind myself that we have already accomplished a tremendous amount in the memory of Trayvon. All we ever asked for was for equal justice for the young man who was killed that drizzling night in Sanford, Florida. If George Zimmerman had rights, so did Trayvon Martin. And that is why Mr. Zimmerman was properly arrested and charged with murder in the second degree. He will soon be judged by a jury of his peers, and that is the best we can do.
Victory should not require any particular verdict in this trial. That there was a trial is the victory.
Of course, some people consider it ridiculous that there was a trial at all, or that the jury is being allowed to reach a verdict. Over at Ethics Alarms, Jack writes:
Last week, Judge Debra Nelson, presiding over Zimmerman’s trial, rejected the motion by Zimmerman’s defense team to dismiss the case before a single defense witness had been called, because the prosecution had not met its burden of proof. Media analysts were quick to note that such motions are routine, but this one wasn’t: it was obvious and undeniable that the prosecution’s case could not support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A courageous, fair and ethical judge would have dismissed the case: Judge Nelson did not. Judges usually default to the position that we should let the jury decide, but when the evidence won’t support a legitimate guilty verdict, as in this case, that position is irresponsible.
Not for the first time, Jack genuinely can’t imagine that any reasonable person could ever disagree with the right-wing view. This case is not nearly as clear-cut as he suggests.
According to Findlaw:
Florida’s jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The victim is deceased,
- The victim’s death was caused by the defendant’s criminal act, and
- There was an unlawful killing of the victim “by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.”
The last element — an “imminently dangerous” act that shows a “depraved mind” — is further defined by Florida’s jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
- A “person of ordinary judgment” would know the act, or series of acts, “is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another”;
- The act is “done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent”; and
- The act is “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
Note that prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant intended to cause death, Florida’s jury instructions state.
IF the jury is persuaded that Zimmerman, who told the dispatcher “Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away,” before disregarding the dispatcher’s request to stay put and chasing after a 17-year-old kid in the dark while carrying a gun, had demonstrated both ill will and committing an act that was very likely to lead to serious bodily injury, they could reasonably find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder.
The jury could also find Zimmerman guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Findlaw again:
To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with “culpable negligence.” Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant’s recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly.
So to find that Zimmerman committed manslaughter, no finding of spite or ill will is required.
Zimmerman’s strongest argument is that Martin’s death was in self-defense. Although not all witnesses agreed, both Zimmerman’s injuries and the testimony of the closest third party witness support Zimmerman’s testimony that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose, and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and may have pounded Zimmerman’s head into the ground.
I think someone in that situation could very reasonably fear “death or great bodily harm,” even if he provoked the situation himself through his own idiotic actions. However, from the standard instructions given Florida juries in self-defense cases:
The use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find George Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself, by force or the threat of force, unless:
* The force asserted toward George Zimmerman was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Trayvon Martin;
So there if the jury believes that Zimmerman “initially provoked the use of force,” AND if they believe that Zimmerman had not “exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger,” then they could reasonably decide that Zimmerman was not acting in legitimate self-defense.
Honestly, if I was on the jury, I’d probably vote “not guilty.” Someone on the ground, being straddled and beaten, can reasonably be in fear of death or serious injury, and may not believe he has any way out other than his gun. And although much of Zimmerman’s testimony doesn’t seem credible to me, that he was on the ground being straddled and hit by Martin does strike me as credible, given his injuries and the neighbor’s testimony.
But I’m not on the jury. And I don’t think the judge was wrong to think that determination should be made by the jury.
* * *
A couple of random thoughts:
* Ironically, it seems to me that if Zimmerman had died – if in the course of the scuffle Zimmerman’s head had hit the pavement so hard that Zimmerman died of a mortal injury – that Trayvon Martin would have a much stronger case for self-defense than Zimmerman has.
* Although I think Zimmerman may have reasonably been in fear of his life, given how objectively minor his injuries were, that fear was almost certainly mistaken. If Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun, it is overwhelmingly likely that both Zimmerman and Martin would be alive today. Yay guns!
* I actually think that chasing after someone in the dark with a gun, unless there are highly compelling circumstances justifying it, should itself be a crime – even if the gunholder winds up in a situation where he fears for his life. (I don’t find Zimmerman’s story that he didn’t pursue Martin credible, although of course a jury could reasonably disagree with me about that.) The potential for an otherwise nonlethal conflict to escalate into something deadly when idiots like Zimmerman bring a gun into what had been a non-gun situation is obvious, and in my opinion Zimmerman’s actions showed a depraved indifference to that possibility. That should be a crime. But maybe it’s effectively not a crime, under current Florida law.
* I find it disgusting that so much of the discussion of this trial, and the trial itself, (such as admitting evidence that Martin had – gasp! – smoked pot at some point!) has been about disparaging Martin and his friend Rachel Jeantel. In particular, the racist, sexist, classist, and fatphobic attacks on Jeantel have disgusted me. For more on this, read Erikka Yancy, Demetria Lucas, and Mychal Denzel Smith.
Because the left advocates continuing the AA policies of the late 20th century?
I could risk oversimplification by saying that “conservatives” believe that paying ten cents on the dollar is fair and equitable. It wouldn’t be fair or more than vaguely accurate, but I could do that.
I never said we should.
I do think that our tendency toward tribal thinking is something we should all be aware of so our more rational side can be on guard against it leading us away from rationality.
Seeing someone who is very different than me, who is clearly not a member of “my” tribe (say, a black teenager, wearing a hoodie, walking down the street), may cause my tribal instincts to think: hmmm… this guy’s up to no good, I should call the police and follow him. My hope, should I find myself in that situation is that my more rational side will jump in and say: wait a minute! There is nothing inherently suspicious about walking down the street.
Many elements of racism (sexism, etc.) are learned but I believe that they are also rooted in our tribal, different is scary and bad, instinct. It is one of my firm beliefs that to be an anti-racist (anti-sexist, etc.) is often an act of will… an act of using our rational side to overrule our instinctive side.
Tribalism is self sustaining, mostly because it’s mutual. The more differences that you have with someone–anyone, really–the more that you have a chance for conflict and the less likely that they are to act in ways which you find acceptable, predictable, and just. Self-interest is usually rational: putting the generic social benefits of anti-tribalism before your own personal choice is a non-rational act.
I don’t get the comments about hoodies.
People usually choose their clothes deliberately, in order to send a particular social signal. It would be bizarre to claim that reading and reacting to that signal is a bad, or problematic, thing. People judge clothes because the wearers choose their presentation, whether they’re trying to look cool, rich, intimidating, unapproachable, sexy, nondescript, workmanlike, fashionable, or whatever. Clothes have meaning because of what they imply about the wearer’s choices and the wearer’s desire to send a particular signal. That includes hoodies along with everything else.
g&w,
Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie because it was cold and raining. Because he happened to be a black teenager, then suddenly it becomes a statement that he was up to no good, and it is his fault it got read that way? really?
Myca:
I’m making the point that people such as Jake who presume that George Zimmerman (and they are legion) acted out of racial animus have no factual basis for doing so. Your response is to claim that the death of Trayvon Martin doesn’t bother me. That seems both non-responsive and absurd.
Being instinctive I would agree that it is mutual.
I agree that more differences means an increased likelihood of conflict but that doesn’t mean what I (or anyone) find to be “acceptable, predictable, and just” actually is.
Self interest might be rational but is what we are feeling, our snap judgments, always self interest or might they be selfishness that we have rationalized as self interest?
It was a reference to Trayvon Martin. Many people, possibly including George Zimmerman, associate hoodies with “gansta” culture. Thus, they may presume that anyone wearing a hoodie (particularly a young black man) must be up to no good… when, in fact, he might just be walking home after buying some candy and iced tea.
It is true that we use clothing as tribal indicators and to send out messages about who we are… but that doesn’t mean the message we think we are receiving is always the accurate one. In some cases it may be obvious (the white guys in the KKK robes, for example) but in others not so much. If I see a young woman in short shorts and a tank top does that mean that she “wants it,” as the primitive hetero-male part of my brain will usually presume just before it recommends that I go hit on her? Or is it possible that she is dressed that way simply because it is a hot day out? Is the young black man in the hoodie a criminal scoping out houses to rob or just a young man walking home?
It is that uncertainty that places a moral duty upon us to think things through before we decide what’s what.
No, you quoted me. I am responding to your quotation of me.
And, frankly, the death of an unarmed black teenager doesn’t seem to bother you much. It seems to bother you much more that someone might refer to him as a victim.
—Myca
That “particularly a young black man” part is especially important. I’m a 4’10” white woman. If I wear a hoodie in public, no one would ever use that as evidence that I’m up to no good. The most reaction I’ve ever gotten to wearing a hoodie (which I do often — they’re really comfortable) is Little Red Riding Hood jokes.
Additionally, Ron, though it’s true that the death of Trayvon doesn’t seem to bother you much, that’s not actually what I said in the posts you’re referencing.
What I said was either:
Or:
The ‘bother you’ in both posts is referring to the fact that, under current Florida law, it’s apparently legal to start a fight, and if you’re losing, murder the dude you’re fighting with, because as long as you’re the only one there to tell the story, you’ll get off.
—Myca
What evidence are you relying on to conclude that Zimmerman “started a fight?” Alternatively, what do you mean by the term “start a fight?” Why are you focusing on Florida in particular?
And what do you think you’d change?
Everywhere in the US (not just Florida!) you’re allowed to act within the bounds of the law, even if pisses someone off. You can walk behind someone, stare at them, report them to 911, and try to talk to them. You can even insult them.
Would you change that?
Everywhere in the US, an annoyed person can reply in kind, or they can walk away–but they have no right to resort to violence as a way to shut you up, unless your behavior is both subjectively and objectively threatening*.
Would you change that?
Everywhere in the US, if you’re being assaulted then you have the right to defend yourself if you need to. There are states which have sweeping self-defense laws and states which do not, but there is no general obligation to stand there and get beaten up.
Would you change that?
In about 24 states, there are sweeping self defense laws which apply to defense of persons or property. Florida is one of them but is not unusual at all. They generally mirror the old English common law concept of self defense, insofar as they permit you to use lethal force to defend yourself if you believe you are in fear for your life. They also allow you to defend your property, or (in some cases) the property and/or person of another.
You could change those laws to create a duty to retreat. As a practical matter that would have a variety of effects. Among others, it would obviously make it more profitable and functional to threaten others with harm, because they would be obliged to retreat rather than respond with deadly force. (If you point a gun at me and demand my clothes, wallet, car, vote, or anything else, then in most states I can shoot you. If I’m obliged to retreat or if I’d be charged with murder if I shoot you, it makes it much “cheaper” for you to win the fight; the first person to display a weapon basically controls the game.)
It would also cause some innocent folks to get injured or killed, because “retreating” is pretty much a crapshoot when you’re near someone and you’re on foot. Once you’re actually in a fight, it’s often impossible to safely retreat. and It would also cause at least some people with valid self-defense claims to go to jail. And of course, it would also cause some people not to get shot in self-defense–whether they were innocent victims or assailants.
There are also some states in which the burden shifts around. For example, sometimes the person claiming self-defense is obliged to prove self-defense (or the inability to retreat) beyond a reasonable doubt. Changes in evidentiary standards don’t really do much at all, accuracy-wise. They just move the balance: they make it more likely that an innocent self-defense shooter will end up in prison, in order to put more non-innocent shooters in prison.
You could change those laws to prevent defense of property. That would, of course, make it more profitable to rob others since they could not legally defend using lethal force (which includes a lot of things other than guns.) It would generally have the same effects as above.
You could change those laws to modify the burden of proof. That would make it more likely that people would end up in jail, whether or not they were innocent.
You could change those laws to selectively modify the burden of proof, say, for gun owners. That would make it more likely that shooters would end up in jail, whether or not they were innocent.
You could change those laws to lower the standard for “aggression” or “assault.” In other words, you’d be making some legal behavior into illegal behavior. You might think this was a good idea, because it would justify Trayvon taking a swing at Zimmerman. That would make it more likely that defenders would end up in jail, whether or not they were innocent…. and it would also make it more likely that people who are subjectively perceived as “aggressive” or “dangerous” will end up getting attacked. Like, say, young black men.
What would you change?
*There are a few exceptions; I’m not trying to give a 100% accurate summary of the entire area of the law.
Seems to me that, by the evidence available to us, it’s 50/50 on who initiated physical violence. Therefore it is possible for somebody to start a fight and, if losing, murder the dude they’re fighting with legally. I’m pretty sure that’s what Myca is saying is extremely troublesome.
@311: How is it 50-50? Zimmerman says Trayvon started the fight. Nobody says differently. There’s no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. The only way you can possibly claim it’s 50-50 is by asserting that 50% of statements uttered by George Zimmerman are false — but there’s no evidence of THAT, either.
@311: Also, the notion that somebody can employ deadly force if they have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is not a recent, right-wing innovation; it has been well-established in law for perhaps hundreds of years. However, the concept is being distorted in this instance through the rhetorical trick of characterizing a person employing self-defense as someone who was simply “losing a fight.” That phrase implies that the confrontation was just a game that the person who was “losing” was honor-bound to see to its conclusion by the requirements of good sportsmanship.
Needless to say, it’s not a game. First, again, in order for deadly force to be justified, a person has to be reasonable fear of death or of some kind of grievous bodily injury. That could include brain damage, paralysis, etc. Hopefully, I don’t need to get into a lot of explanation of the serious, life-altering injuries that can result from a beating. The point is, a person who employs self-defense isn’t worried about losing a fight, he is worried about losing his life, his ability to walk, his ability to work, etc.
Second, there is no reason to assume the fighting was consensual or even mutual. In Zimmerman’s case, again, there’s no evidence he started the fight or agreed to partake in it. In fact, there’s no evidence he was even able to fight back in any significant way. There were no injuries to Martin other than to his knuckles and the fatal GSW. Therefore, to characterize Zimmerman as a guy who was just “losing a fight” implies a lot of things about the circumstances for which there is zero evidence.
Honestly, people seem to be basing their impressions of the Zimmerman case on old movies where men get drunk and start fighting just for the sport of it. Usually this involves breaking furniture and bottles over each other’s heads, all without any lasting physical consequences. As often as not, they end up as buddies by the end of the fight, it they weren’t already to begin with. Maybe that’s what people think was going to happen with TM and GZ — they were just supposed to have this little tussle and that would be the end of it. Zimmerman, however, forgot that it was all in good fun and pulled a weapon.
For literally the fourth fucking time: I’m not concluding that. I don’t need to conclude that. My argument doesn’t rest on that being true.
For more information, feel free to review posts #282, 290, and 292.
From 282:
From 290:
From 292:
—Myca
From an individualistic perspective, we often like to acknowledge that there are differences between us. It’s part of what makes the country interesting.
But as soon as you start acknowledging that things are different, you end making distinctions between them. Distinctions lead to preferences; preferences lead to judgments; judgments lead to consequences. The more that society is willing to distinguish between groups, the more likely it is that society is going to assign different pros/cons to the traits of each group.
And of course, no group is perfect. When you start acknowledging that there are differences between groups, it’s virtually guaranteed that there will be some ways in which Group A is better, and some ways in which Group A is worse. (If you think that there are differences and that all the benefits accrue to your chosen group, you’re just looking through one eye.)
So there’s an inherent tension as a result, which accrues to immutable issues like race, in a way that it does not accrue to non-immutable issues such as class. That is because it is so hard to simultaneously maintain two inherently-conflicting concepts:
1) The races and/or cultures are significantly different in important ways. This is the underlying concept of “diversity brings benefits” initiatives; statements such as “we should respect/preserve ____ distinct culture;” and other such stuff.
and
2) The differences are irrelevant, minor, or inappropriate to use as the basis for social choice. This is the underlying foundation of anti-discrimination law, of course.
@312
There’s no evidence that Martin started the fight other than Zimmerman’s claim. Zimmerman has motive to lie about this and isn’t the most credible person around. Human memory is also notably inaccurate and biased to make ourselves look better. There is no physical evidence available supporting either one of them starting the fight.
That’s why it’s 50/50 as to who initiated the physical confrontation.
I was just curious; as you can see from the rest of my question I’m focused entirely on the hypothetical. And the answer to what “start a fight” means is very, very, important, as is the answer to what type of evidence you’d want to reach that conclusion.
Feel free to treat those generally in your response: if you want to put someone in jail for murder, how would you like to go about it?
And it makes no sense to focus on Florida specifically, if we’re doing generic hypotheticals. Since the dead guy can NEVER testify in the case of a self defense killing, then the “a dead guy can’t speak in his defense!” argument has nothing to do with Florida law. It’s just how self-defense works.
For the sake of argument, assume that the shooters will claim self defense. Then what? Well, in the “are you OK with that?” arena: of course I’m not OK with it in the incidents where the shooter was not acting in self defense. I doubt anyone is. I am OK with it in the incidents where the shooter was acting in self defense. I suspect most people are, though not everyone.
If you want to talk about the possibility that there will be a vengeful shooter who is inadvertently set free: Well, OK. But for every change in the law, you also have to consider the possibility that there will be a truly innocent shooter who is convicted, and you need to weigh that possibility as well. Talking only about one side of a trade-off is simply inane. .
Do I want guilty people to go free? Hell, no–but neither do I want innocent people to go to jail for murder, and I weigh that more heavily.
I disagree. To call it 50-50 is to treat it as if there is literally no direct and no circumstantial evidence to indicate who started the fight. It’s as if the hypothetical were posed, “Assume ‘A’ and ‘B’ were involved in a fight. What is the likelihood that ‘A’ started the fight?” In that case, I suppose you’d have to call it 50% in the absence of literally any other information. In the case of GZ vs. TM, however, we have:
1. GZ’s first-hand account;
2. Injuries consistent with that story (i.e., injuries solely to GZ, except for knuckle injuries on TM);
3. Experienced police officers found GZ’s account credible and as consistent in terms of details as they would expect under the circumstances.
4. Credible eyewitnesses who saw TM on top, i.e., in an advantageous position consistent with having gained the initiative by starting the fight.
I don’t know how you can possibly, seriously discount all of that evidence in order to turn this back into a complete, blank slate, random scenario like my “a” vs. “B” hypothetical.
That’s certainly consistent with part of that story. The injuries give no indication as to who initiated the fight. Was the first physical contact a punch? A push? A grab? We have nothing to go on here except for the claims of an understandably biased party.
Who’s on top at the end of a fight is not evidence of who started a fight.
Look, you can interpret the evidence however you want. We’re clearly never going to agree. I think you’re wrong but I don’t think you have zero basis for your conclusion. It would be awesome to receive the same courtesy from you.
[Jack, please reread the moderation goals for this blog. In particular, this bit: “Debates are conducted in a manner that shows respect even for folks we disagree with.” If you don’t find it possible to disagree with people while treating them with respect, then I’ll ask you to stop leaving comments here. Where would make me unhappy, so I hope it doesn’t come to that. –Amp]
Fascinating, isn’t it? So many compassionate, fair, intelligent people tying their brains into knots because they have staked everything on a badly cast George Zimmerman being the epitome of murderous, conservative, vigilante racist. Opps! He’s not white! Oops! His prom date was black! Oops! He voted for Obama! Oops! He never used a racial slur! Oops! He was jumped by the victim! Oops! He really was injured! Oops! The evidence and all the witnesses support his account! Never mind…you just KNOW he did it.This is the real lesson of this endless mess–how confirmation bias makes good people into bigots and persecutors.There is another piece of evidence: when police, while interrogating Zimmerman, told him that the entire altercation was caught on a security camera—a lie, to check his reaction–his instant response, according to witnesses, was “Thank God!” Clever guy, that George. Quick thinking!But this has never been about evidence. It was about making Obama’s base fear for their lives just in time for the 2012 elections, and increasing racial divisiveness for cynical political gain. At least I hope that was what it was about, because if there wasn’t some tangible reason for it, it is the stupidest self-inflicted wound on society that I can remember.One possibility which would at least partly address my feeling that Zimmerman got away with what should be criminal behavior, is something like Ohio’s anti-stalking law:
The writer goes on to argue:
For me, I wouldn’t want anyone to be subject to Florida’s felony murder laws, which are too broad (there was a guy who came one Supreme Court justice short of being executed for sitting in a getaway car) and can lead to the death penalty, neither of which I’d want. So if we’re assuming that I’m hypothetically writing Florida’s laws, I’d be changing those laws a bit too.
But a felony stalking law, combined with a felony manslaughter law for people who unintentionally cause loss of life as a result of a felony they were committing, strikes me as something that would have produced a more just result in this case, and also would not lead to throwing innocent people in prison (or at least, no more than any other law would.)
(Note that although I’m getting info from the article I linked to at the top of this comment, I disagree with much of what that author says).
Apparently the truth hurts. That was a low blow, Barry, and uncalled for. There is nothing that violates the blog’s standards in that comment. I think that’s unethical moderation, and despicable, frankly.
I have allowed you to go so far as to call me a liar on my blog, and we worked it out. This simply shows that you and the hoard here will not tolerate a legitimate and accurate assessment of the ideological blindness displayed on this topic.
I’m disappointed. For what it’s worth, you are still welcome to argue frankly at Ethics Alarms, as is anyone else.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Jake Squid @316:
I have to agree with Conrad that it is not 50/50. We don’t just have Zimmerman’s words.
We have some of Martin’s side of the story through Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.
I think Martin started the fight. The reason is because Zimmerman had called the police and Zimmerman KNEW he had called the police. He knew they were coming. It makes perfect sense to me that he wanted to keep Martin in his sight so he could be apprehended. If he had just wanted to kill Martin, he did not need to call the police ahead of time. In fact, that would be a VERY dumb idea. But, knowing the police were coming, it does not make sense that he would want to escalate it to that point. (If you have a response to that (and has not been addressed in the 300 prior comments), I would love to hear it, because that is what clinches it for me).
Martin, on the other hand, did not know anything about Zimmerman (except that he was following him), and did not know the police were on the way. If he thought he was being followed aggressively, it makes sense that he would “throw the first punch.”
So, the bottom line is: based upon what they knew and what they did, it makes more sense to me that Martin is the one that turned the confrontation into a physical one.
-Jut
Ack. Broken blockquotes. Amp – could you fix them and delete this post, please?
[Broken blockquote fixed. I prefer to leave comments like this un-deleted, so that other readers see that requesting things like “fix the broken blockquote” is an option. –Amp]
None of the items I cited constitutes PROOF that TM started the fight, but they all provide some evidence that he did. For example, TM’s being on top makes it somewhat more likely he was the initial aggressor, because the initial aggressor would naturally have the advantage, all else being equal.
I’m sure this could be proven in a controlled experiment. If you took a thousand guys, paired them off, sent each pair into a room, but secretly instructed one of them to start fighting the other one as soon as they went into the room, then you came back in a few minutes, I would bet you anything that, more often than not, the one who started the fight (a) had fewer injuries, and (b) was in a dominant position (if either one was, that is). If we’re talking about 500 iterations of that experiment, I would be amazed if the guys who started the fight didn’t come out ahead at least 300 times.
While one can argue that each of the items I cited only tilts the scale a little bit in GZ’s favor, the cumulative effect is that it’s at least somewhat more likely than not that TM started the fight.
(BTW, I didn’t expect a debate over semantics, but I would think that “starting a fight” means to start fighting, not merely to take some action that prompts the other guy to start fighting. By that definition, again, there is SOME evidence TM started the fight as against ZERO evidence GZ did so.)
You are correct that we’re both at liberty to weigh the evidence. I just don’t think we’re at liberty to deny the evidence — on the principle that “you’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” The things I cited are facts, not opinions. In the face of those facts, and the absence of any others that you have brought to the discussion, I don’t see how you can maintain that it is strictly a 50-50 proposition. Again, you’d have to assign literally zero evidentiary value to each of those factors.
JutGory wrote:
I don’t believe that anyone here has been claiming that Zimmerman wanted to or intended to kill Martin, or that he was plotting to kill Martin. Rather, the argument has been that there was a confrontation between them which escalated, without any plotting ahead of time for that to happen.
Sorry you’re disappointed, Jack, and I hope you’ll come back.
I think your comment did violate this blog’s standards – and it’s not at all the first comment you’ve left here that did.
I have certainly called you out on lies on your blog – but NEVER without having factual evidence to back it up, and NEVER without doing my best to address you with respect. I may have messed up on that, in the heat of anger, once or twice out of hundreds of comments I’ve made on your blog, but on the whole I think I’ve done a credible job of adhering to (and, frankly, exceeding) your blog’s standards.
Finally, the idea that I don’t allow disagreement on this blog, or on this topic, is self-refuting to anyone who reads this thread. You’re far from Zimmerman’s only defender on this thread, Jack.
Ampersand @327:
And, I did not mean to suggest that anyone here had made that argument. Rather, it was that, having called the police and knowing that they were coming, it makes more sense to me that Zimmerman would have been less likely to escalate the situation into one of physical violence. On the other hand, because Martin did not know Zimmerman’s intentions or the fact that the police were on their way, it makes more sense to me that he would have fewer reservations about escalating it.
-Jut
Actually not, because there is no stalking law under which Zimmerman’s actions would be illegal. Following someone once isn’t what a “pattern of conduct” means. And the state would never prove the “knowingly” element anyway.
This is actually a good thing. If you think it should be, I might present a bit of a thought experiment:
SCENARIO 1: Choose a law that you think would reach a “just result” w/r/t GZ and Trayvon.
SCENARIO 2: Take that same law. Now you have a nervous, slightly-racist, white woman who is walking home. Twenty feet behind her, walking in the same direction, you have a tall, muscular, 20-year old black man wearing a hoodie. He lives near her, but she doesn’t know that. It’s dark and raining. She’s scared. She gets to a busy street and is forced to stop for traffic. he continues to approach from behind. She reaches for her gun….
SCENARIO 3: GZ is following Trayvon. Trayvon (in this scenario) is armed, but has no idea about GZ’s concealed weapon. GZ (in this scenario) is keeping track of Trayvon and not doing much else, as he is wondering why the cops are taking so long. Trayvon decides that GZ is threatening him, and turns with a gun; GZ goes for his weapon in return; Trayvon kills him….
It’s actually quite difficult to write a law which would “justly” convict GZ on the basis of his following Trayvon, and which wouldn’t cause some real issues in scenario #2 or #3 or any number of other scenarios.
The problem is that you seem to be operating on the assumption that laws produce “just” results. They do ON AVERAGE but they are routinely imprecise when it comes to specifics.
And here’s the problem I have w/ you guys. I haven’t made up any facts. I haven’t denied any of the evidence. What I have done is weighed that evidence differently than you have. You don’t have to think it’s a 50/50 proposition as to who initiated the fight. What you do have to do is accept that others, weighing the same evidence can honestly come to a different conclusion than you.
Pingback: Ethics Quiz: My “Disrespectful” Comment | Ethics Alarms
My previous comment is stranded back in the 200s, so I’m going to repost this link in hopes it might generate some response.
I would be curious, particularly for those who believe it is not credible that race influenced Zimmerman’s perceptions of this incident (or, for that matter, your own perceptions, including the scenario you find “most credible” in terms of “who probably started the fight”), to know what your thoughts are on this video:
JutGory:
…having called the police and knowing that they were coming, it makes more sense to me that Zimmerman would have been less likely to escalate the situation into one of physical violence. On the other hand, because Martin did not know Zimmerman’s intentions or the fact that the police were on their way, it makes more sense to me that he would have fewer reservations about escalating it.
I think that depends… I think there are plenty of people who would disagree with me, but I would view anyone grabbing Trayvon (or myself, for that matter) as starting a fight–or to be more specific, it justifies violence in self-defense, though only the amount of violence necessary to escape. Doing something to prevent me from getting away from you is the sort of thing that, I think, passes the “reasonable person” test–a reasonable person who has been followed and now is being grabbed and prevented from leaving should fear the possibility of loss of life and/or serious bodily harm and/or kidnapping. Grabbing someone also deprives them of their liberty, if only (hopefully) temporarily. I think throwing a punch in that situation is self-defense. (I do not think insults or even following someone justifies violence in self-defense, though both of them are usually bad things to do.)
Anyway, to get back to your original point, if Zimmerman knew the police were coming, I think that would make him more motivated, not less, to grab Trayvon in order to prevent him from fleeing before police arrived. He may have also worried less about getting injured himself, since he thought the cops would be there soon to help. So that is why this piece of evidence doesn’t give me more reason to believe that Trayvon started the fight.
Elusis,
That’s kind of the eternal debate as to whether stereotypes have any validity.
A lot of the statistics – for instance murder 50% by blacks, 13% of the population – point to significantly more crime by blacks than by whites. In “inner city” areas, like certain corners of 6 Mile Road in Detroit, or in Compton, or in Harlem, or especially now in Chicago, your life may depend on reading very minor social cues. Really.
And I also have to say that a big revelation came for me when I realized that an individual black person may have nothing at all to do with the Bloods and Crips or murder or stealing bicycles. So on that level, you have to look at people as individuals.
But I’d like to ask you, Elusis, if you would be a bit more hesitant if you walk out to your car in a dark parking lot with no one else around and a man, wearing dark clothes and slinking between the cars, is looking at you a few times when you look up. Would that bother you more than a small woman who is just marching straight to her car?
When you are honest, congratulations, you are profiling people. Maybe rightly so.
Closetpuritan:
My vague memory of the testimony in the trial was that George Zimmerman said that he had “lost him” (meaning lost sight of Trayvon Martin). The next instance was Martin dashing out of the bushes, attacking Zimmerman.
I know for sure – you can view the testimony on YouTube – that one of the residents said he saw the black guy on top, raining down punches “MMA style” and beating the white/Hispanic guy’s head into the pavement.
Thanks for watching the video, Varusz.
Yes, I would be more hesitant to walk into a dark parking lot with a man near my car than with a woman near my car, even without the clothing and behavior differences. And you didn’t invoke race, but I know and can admit that I would hesitate more if that man appeared to be black or brown. (Ironically, I had exactly this scenario come up just a couple of months ago. Turns out the brown guy near my car asked me for a jump. Which immediately made me think “man, that’s a perfect setup for a carjacking, abduction, or rape.” And then I thought a minute about whether I wanted to act on my stereotyping or not, and I pulled out my cables and jumped his car. But I know full well that if I had been carjacked, abducted, or raped, people would be concluding that I “should have known better” than to help him, suggesting I should have acted on the stereotype.)
And yes, I do engage in stereotyping that involves racism, sexism, classism, and other ‘isms, because I’m human, and the human brain is a pattern-detecting organism, and I grew up and continue to live in a context that is saturated with information that supports stereotyping based on, among other things, race, class, and gender. I work all the time on un-learning these stereotypes, and I still find myself pushed and pulled by them. I have racist thoughts, I have racist reactions, I find it easy to jump to racist conclusions.
Your comment seems to imply a kind of “gotcha,” as if you think my point in posting the video is to say “I would NEVER do this,” but in fact my point is that I believe we all do this, all the time. All of us. You, me, George Zimmerman, are more likely to perceive a young black man as a dangerous criminal than as a neutral stimulus.
So what bothers me about the conversation here is that it seems as though most of the people supporting the verdict, ALSO seem determined to “disprove” that Zimmerman might have made this kind of race and gender charged attribution, and might have engaged in stereotyping Martin. When in fact the evidence seems pretty strong (of which this video is just a single illustration) that this would be fairly typical, expected behavior, which I can certainly admit I might be prone to in his shoes.
AND, most supporters of the verdict in this conversation seem determined to assert that the “most plausible” possibility is that Martin attacked Zimmerman, with zero evidence for this assertion, without considering the possibility that what they find “most plausible” might also be affected by this same fairly typical, expected stereotyping behavior.
So my reaction is that the 300+ comment thread here, by and large, says far more about the people commenting, than about the trial.
And while I appreciate you watching the video, I would very much appreciate hearing your *personal* reaction to it, which I notice you left out in favor of your (intended or not, perhaps rhetorical?) attempt at “gotcha”-ing me. Will you share it?
OK, Elusis, I admit I didn’t watch the whole video before I posted. I suspected what was coming, and posted based on that.
Now I have watched every second of the video (without e-mailing or googling in between – promise).
Here’s what I see:
White guy sawing away at the bike – a little questioning, but mostly nothing.
Black guy sawing away at the bike – a lot of questioning.
White woman sawing away at the bike – lots of men want to help her, EVEN AFTER she says (basically) that she wants to steal the bike.
What am I supposed to conclude from that? In order of preference of society: White woman way on top, chivalrous men even want to help her; white guy in the middle, they assume he works for the park or whatever; black guy on the bottom.
Are you really sure that you want to demonstrate that white women have more power in society than white men?
Anyway, I also notice that these programs also set up according to the “narrative” (white oppressor, black oppressee). They record a minor slight in a department store that may not be related to race, but they leave out the white guy coming over the bridge from Windsor into Detroit, turning off on one of the minor mile roads at 1:00 a.m. trying to buy beer in a mostly black neighborhood. Anecdotes can be made up, but maybe someone can tell you that the situation can quickly turn unpleasant.
Secondly, could it be an objective factor that black crime rates are much higher? If not, where do the stereotypes come from? Why don’t they show a Jewish white guy. Or an Asian. They are also minorities. Why are blacks targeted? My hypothesis is because they verifiably commit more crimes, what’s your hypothesis?
“I know for sure – you can view the testimony on YouTube – that one of the residents said he saw the black guy on top, raining down punches “MMA style” and beating the white/Hispanic guy’s head into the pavement.”
You know that for sure that he said that, but that is very different from knowing for sure that it is accurate. You missed that the guy who initially stated that changed his testimony a little while later to state that he wasn’t sure whether Martin was punching Zimmerman or merely attempting to restrain him, and that he didn’t know who was calling for help. So that doesn’t actually tell us much about what happened.
Elusis:
THIS. A thousand times this.
So much of the conversation has revolved around whether or not George Zimmerman is “a racist,” as if all people can be neatly divided into “racists” and “non-racists.” It doesn’t work that way. It’s much more uncomfortable, for both conservatives and liberals, to admit that anyone is capable of racial profiling, and that doing so can have horrible consequences.
Varusz,
Black people (specifically, Black men) do commit more violent crime than other groups, that’s generally acknowledged. We can debate the reasons for why that is, but there’s no doubt about the fact. (They don’t commit more drug crimes, which goes against what a lot of people believe).
Of course, there are other traits that correlate much more tightly than race, with the propensity to commit violent crimes. for example, a past history of violence or a criminal record. Comparing a muscular white guy with a criminal record and allegations of rape, to a skinny Black youth with no previous criminal history, suddenly the comparison becomes much more complex .
However, the concept is being distorted in this instance through the rhetorical trick of characterizing a person employing self-defense as someone who was simply “losing a fight.” That phrase implies that the confrontation was just a game that the person who was “losing” was honor-bound to see to its conclusion by the requirements of good sportsmanship.
This seems rather fanciful to me. Reminds me of some of the Freudian analysis I’ve had to read in college literature classes.
“And here’s the problem I have w/ you guys. I haven’t made up any facts. I haven’t denied any of the evidence. What I have done is weighed that evidence differently than you have. You don’t have to think it’s a 50/50 proposition as to who initiated the fight.”
Dunno. Seems you are both looking at different things.
What strikes me is that Zs ‘side’ are mostly arguing from physical evidence. There is no evidence M was struck but evidence that Z was, so it is more likely that M started it as the only evidence of a blow is from him – and it is possible Z never struck anyone. Ms ‘side’ are mostly arguing from motive. Arguing that M would have no reason to want an altercation, but Z did have.
It depends what you mean by evidence and facts vs inference and supposition, and where you draw the line. But I personally am sceptical about arguments from motive.
“Black people (specifically, Black men) do commit more violent crime than other groups, that’s generally acknowledged. We can debate the reasons for why that is, but there’s no doubt about the fact. (They don’t commit more drug crimes, which goes against what a lot of people believe).”
—-
Hector_St_Clare: No, I don’t think it’s generally acknowledged in certain circles, in any case probably not by many on this board, that’s why I extended it as a possible hypothesis. I personally believe it, having seen FBI statistics like 50% of homicides in the USA coming from 12.7% (blacks) of the population, and having lived in a large “inner city” area for a year in college to save money.
As a man, I know that Elusis may be more suspicious of me if I am wandering around a dark parking lot at night with no one else around. Especially if I am ACTING suspicious with dark clothing, furtive glances and no apparent objective (I’m not going right to my car).
I have no problem with that. When I accidently wind up behind a woman on the sidewalk at night, coming out of the subway or whatever, I intentionally change over to the other street side so she doesn’t think I’m following her. She is right in “profiling” me in that situation, because men do commit more crime against women in that situation than women against women. I have no interest in intimidating her.
There isn’t much difference between that situation, and a situation where blacks are trying to intimidate with gang appearances, hostile behavior and all the rest. They certainly have a right to wear a hoody without interference, but I don’t think it’s a terribly wrong thing for people to be more wary in certain situations that statistically are worth being more wary of.
But that argument is not going to find any traction if the target audience will not even concede that more violent crime proportionately comes from the black community (again: you can argue the reasons why that is).
Basically, if a stove is red hot, you learn not to put your hand on it.
And all of that aside from that fact that you can argue about what “hot” means and at what temperature a stove becomes “hot” and the quantum-mechanical backing of infrared radiation and the medical grounds for the sensation of hotness and the argument of whether we are all real anyway and if the stove is even real.
Still, you learn not to put your hand on a hot stove while you are debating all of that.
It’s very kind of you to fill in other comment-writers’ opinions with your own speculations about what you’re sure they’d say; it saves you the time of having to actually read what others write, or listen to what they say. Indeed, you could simply skip having discussion altogether, with that method. However, as an alternative, you could try out responding to what others actually say once they’ve said it, rather than before the fact.
For the record: Yes, obviously, a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US is committed by young Black men. Does anyone deny this?
That said, this is ridiculous:
First, the FBI says that 37.7% of murders – not 50% – are committed by Black offenders. (My guess is that you got your 50% number by ignoring the 28% of murders in which the FBI doesn’t know the race of the offender.)
Second of all, the way you phrase it makes it sound like 50% of homicides are committed by the Black 12.7% of the population. There are just under 40,000,000 Black people in the United States, of whom 99.999% will not commit murder. Whether the random person you meet on the street is Black or White or something else, the odds of that person being a murderer are the same: Too tiny to worry about.
(Similarly, even though a disproportionate majority of mass murderers in the US are white men, they are simply too rare compared to the total population of white men for it to make sense to worry about it when encountering random white men on the street.)
Furthermore – speaking as a white person – let’s not forget that 84% of white murder victims are murdered by another white person. So even if I ignore the fact that murderers are statistically incredibly rare (unlike, say, men who harass women on the street, which is an everyday occurrence), it still doesn’t make sense for me personally, as a white person, to view black people as more likely to murder me than white people.
None of which is to disagree that if there’s a “a situation where blacks are trying to intimidate with gang appearances, hostile behavior,” then yeah, I’d be cautious and hurry to another area. But I’m confused as to why you specify “blacks” in your example – surely if there were a gang of young white men trying to intimidate with “gang appearances” and “hostile behavior,” you’d be cautious of them, too. (I’ve had a gang of young whites follow me around throwing rocks at me. I thought that was intimating.) If your example is “hostile behavior,” then it’s weird to bring up race at all.
It also seems very bizarre to call a hoodie “gang appearances.” I wear a hoodie sometimes; it is cheap and warm and comfortable. My mom wears a hoodie sometimes, and she’s a nice Jewish lady in her 70s, and isn’t in a gang unless you count the synagogue board of directors as a gang. Hoodies aren’t “gang” any more than sneakers are; sure, gang members wear them, but so does everyone else.
How about: Over 50% of the murders in the US – when the race of the murderer is know – are committed by blacks, although they constitute around 13% of the population?
Phrased better?
That is borne out by your own set of statistics. I didn’t feel it necessary to add “when the race of the murderer is known” because the race of the murderer is unknown, although it also wouldn’t be much of a jump to extrapolate the same rate to unknown assailants.
So at least I’ve now been clued in that this board officially believes that blacks commit proportionately more crimes than whites.
I believe that it is OK for a woman to profile a man late at night. It may help her. I likewise think that in certain situations a black guy wearing a certain type of hoody, combined with some other borderline behavior, may give rise to a reason for wariness, more anyway than there would be for a 70-year-old Jewish woman hurrying to her synogogue.
“It’s very kind of you to fill in other comment-writers’ opinions with your own speculations about what you’re sure they’d say; it saves you the time of having to actually read what others write, or listen to what they say… For the record: Yes, obviously, a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US is committed by young Black men. Does anyone deny this?”
But he’s right. We’ve been through exactly this in other threads, and there has been tinfoil hat stuff about the criminal justice system being so racist that the numbers should be dismissed as a refection of their racism rather than facts on the ground.
https://amptoons.com/blog/2013/07/16/homicides-are-a-lot-more-likely-to-be-justified-if-the-corpse-is-black/comment-page-1/#comment-284091
One of the major aspects of self-defense is to be aware of your surroundings out on the street. Be aware of patterns cues that are meaningful. That may save your life if you are walking down 6 Mile Road in Detroit (for whatever reason), but it sounds simply AWFUL at a Manhattan cocktail party with security.
Alex, there’s a HUGE difference between something as broad as the statistics of all crimes – which is what Myca was talking about in the comment you cite – and something as narrow as homicide, or violent crime.
To give a simple example: We know for a fact that the criminal justice system does disproportionately arrest and imprison Black Americans for drug crimes. We also know for a fact that a disproportionate number of homicides are committed by, and against, Black Americans. You appear to think these two statements contradict each other, but they do not.
There seems to be a “we must think of this in simplistic terms” desire that I don’t think the reality bears out. Conrad, for instance, has been arguing against people (including me) who have been arguing that racism is PART of the picture, among other factors, by arguing that there is no way that racism could possibly be part of the picture. That sort of all-or-none thinking is rarely correct.
I was citing the discussion rather than the comment, but luckily Myca clarifies six comments down in #31 when challenged that she is talking about something as narrow as violent crime:
Conrad: It’s another thing to claim that, in fact, a black person in this country in 2013 is no more likely to commit a violent crime than a white person or an Asian, i.e., that the statistics are presenting a completely false picture in terms of black criminality because all races are, in fact, committing violent crimes at exactly the same rate. Is that what you are claiming?
Myca: I don’t have enough information to either make or repudiate that claim. Honestly, I doubt you do either.
https://amptoons.com/blog/2013/07/16/homicides-are-a-lot-more-likely-to-be-justified-if-the-corpse-is-black/comment-page-1/#comment-284110
I just wanted to signal-boost this particular part of Ampersand’s post, and to link to the FBI’s data sheet on it, just so we’re all discussing the same thing.
If you are a white person, and you have been arguing all through this thread (and other threads on this board) that the crime statistics offer you an excuse to act like a racist ass, it is incredibly disingenuous of you to ignore the part where you are in less danger from black people than white people.
I mean, look, I think the argument is bad in the first place for various reasons, but if you accept the basic argument – that it’s okay to treat people differently based on their demographic similarity to people who may be dangerous to you – you have to at least get the, “similarity to people who may be dangerous to you,” part right.
So yes, this argument lends some weight to white people being extra-suspicious of other white people (white men specifically), but doesn’t really provide a reasonable rationale for white people profiling black people, considering how many times more likely they are to be victims of white-on-white violence.
—Myca
I mean, one of the major aspects of self-defense is to be aware of your surroundings out on the street. Be aware of patterns cues that are meaningful. That may save your life if you are walking through a white neighborhood, but it sounds simply AWFUL on the Free Republic forums.
Basically, if a stove is red hot, you learn not to put your hand on it.
But that argument is not going to find any traction if the target audience will not even concede that white people are in danger of more violent crime from the white community (again: you can argue the reasons why that is).
I honestly think that this is a myth that some people cling to in order to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths.
—Myca
Actually the rates are very similar. Whites murder whites at 2630/223.5 = 11.8 per million whites. Blacks murder whites at 448/38.9 = 11.5 per million blacks. Given how racist the US is I’m shocked the numbers are virtually identical. I would have assumed that segregation would have meant a higher w/w rate or higher rates of crime among poorer black communities would have meant a higher b/w rate. Pretty amazing things are so egalitarian given the US is so messed up when it comes to race.
As a side note, only murder is being discussed here. There is a wide range of other violent crimes less than murder.
I see regular, repeated stories of “wilding” and flash mobs on the shopping stretch of Chicago along Lake Michigan, as an example. In videos, it looks like black perpetrators and white or Asian victims. I doubt that most of the victims even bother to file a police report – nothing is going to happen.
At a certain point, though, this just comes down to your attitude towards this. Media reports (however blunted with regard to blacks – 3 different NBC employees were fired for doctoring the Trayvon Martin transcripts as an example), no matter what the crime reports (blacks lead in violent crimes, not just murder), no matter what the anecdotes … it is going to be disputed / weakened / “gravity-gamed” / ameliorated / explained. Just like I tried to point out going into this, before Ampersand said, “Yes, obviously, a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US is committed by young Black men. Does anyone deny this?”.
Apparently someone does deny it.
And frankly, trotting out the label of “racist” to simply shut down the conversation is not going to help things.
I fully realize that a person born black can be the most moral person in the world, and he has nothing to do with the crime rate of the other people in his race. I realize that people are individuals.
Some of those black individuals are saying the same kind of things I am. I really like Thomas Sowell, for instance. He points out that back when blacks were held to the same standards as whites before affirmative action, equal outcomes and all the rest (i.e. they were treated as “real people”), they often met high academic standards.
Everyone just freezes when they are called “racist” whenever someone doesn’t like what is being said. That’s been real productive. Save it for the real racists.
Who here has done that, please? And I also request that you include a direct quote to back up your accusation.
As a quick example:
Post 351 … “If you are a white person, and you have been arguing all through this thread (and other threads on this board) that the crime statistics offer you an excuse to act like a racist ass …”
But I can just feel the love, Ampersand, so if you are trying to find a way to ban me, just do it. I’m not particularly trying to pick a fight here, I’m trying to be reasonable and state my opinion, but if in reality you can’t tolerate that dissent, then be honest.
Not only am I not at this time planning to ban you; not only have I in fact, not banned anyone on this thread afair (including Jack, who never got more than a mod warning before he flounced off); I haven’t even so much as given you a WARNING in this thread, that I recall. All I did was ask you to substantiate an accusation you made.
TLDR: You’re way overreacting. Calm down. Geez.
Alright, I felt ridden like a mule.
You do occasionally need some new, contrasting blood here, otherwise you become an echo chamber.
No forum with myself and Ron F on it (to name just 2) could possibly be an echo chamber. You are hardly the only dissenting voice here.
Re: I really like Thomas Sowell, for instance. He points out that back when blacks were held to the same standards as whites before affirmative action, equal outcomes and all the rest (i.e. they were treated as “real people”), they often met high academic standards.
K, I’m generally culturally somewhat conservative, and at least mildly sympathetic to race realist arguments, but this is just nonsense. Sowell is an economist,. not a cognitive scientist, and he has no particular expertise on this issue. All the evidence up to this point is that while Black people have consistently lagged behind whites on most intelligence/achievement measures over the past century, the gap has (if anything) narrowed by a bit over time.
The reasons why Black people do poorer on standardised tests are complicated and poorly known, and we could probably debate them for a long time, but I’m absolutely certain affirmative action has nothing to do with it. I don’t see that affirmative action has particularly been bad for any country that adopted it- India’s economic growth has been much faster (if more unequal) after they adopted more sweeping affirmative action policies, as has Brazil’s in more recent years.
Likewise, while I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to your arguments about higher violent crime rates among Black men, none of that proves your point. “Black men are somewhat more predisposed than white men to commit violent crimes” doesn’t actually demonstrate that, as a white person, it’s reasonable to treat Black men as potential criminals. For one thing, any given Black man is no more likely to be violent *to you* than a white man: for another, most Black men don’t commit violent crimes anyway; for a third thing, it’s unfair to those Black men to consider them potential criminals, just as it’s unfair to consider all men potential rapists; and for a fourth, by cordoning yourself off from Black people, you do both yourself, and society, a tremendous disservice.
I rise to the defense of Thomas Sowell. He’s one of the last people on Earth one should dismiss as “just an economist.”* I would suggest perusing his Wikipedia page to get a sense of the scope and depth of his scholarship. I’m not saying his views on this stuff should be considered dispositive, but to go after him on the basis of his credentials seems a bit extreme.
(* I realize you didn’t actually use the phrase “just an economist.”)
You wrote: “The reasons why Black people do poorer on standardised tests are complicated and poorly known, and we could probably debate them for a long time, but I’m absolutely certain affirmative action has nothing to do with it. ”
Is anyone really claiming that AA accounts for the entire black-white achievement gap? I thought the point being made was that when blacks were held to the same standard as everyone else, they tended to do better in absolute terms — or at least more of them exceled in absolute terms. That doesn’t seems like an outlandish claim by any stretch. It would seem fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that if black children and their parents understood that race was not going to serve as any kind of advantage in terms of getting into college, getting a job, etc., that this would prompt more of them to aim for and attain a higher level of achievement.
“I don’t see that affirmative action has particularly been bad for any country that adopted it- India’s economic growth has been much faster (if more unequal) after they adopted more sweeping affirmative action policies, as has Brazil’s in more recent years.”
You are using a country’s GDP as a proxy for the success or failure of AA? Aren’t there kind of a lot of factors that go into economic growth?
Also @ 361:
“’Black men are somewhat more predisposed than white men to commit violent crimes’ doesn’t actually demonstrate that, as a white person, it’s reasonable to treat Black men as potential criminals.”
First of all, I’m not sure what it means to treat somebody as a POTENTIAL criminal. Obviously, it doesn’t mean shoot them or incarcerate them. I don’t think it means to be rude or to harass them. I would think it just means to be more vigilant and aware and to avoid being in a situation where you may become a victim. As such, I don’t think it’s generally a terrible idea to “treat” strangers as potential criminals.
“For one thing, any given Black man is no more likely to be violent *to you* than a white man:”
I think this is misleading, at best. I assume you are basing this on the high rate of black-on-black crime. But don’t you think the reason black-on-black crime rates are high is because blacks happen to live in areas populated by other blacks? There’s no reason to think that a black criminal will leave somebody alone simply because he’s white. Common sense suggests that the reason a black criminal is statistically more likely to victimize another black person is that there are probably 50 potential black victims available to him for every white one.
“for another, most Black men don’t commit violent crimes anyway;”
So what? We’re talking about comparative risks, not certain outcomes. Statistically, it’s unlikely that playing golf during a thunderstorm is going to result in your getting struck by lightning. You still don’t do it.
Also, the fact that “MOST black men don’t commit violent crimes” is sort of irrelevant. I think it’s a given that what we’re talking about here is street crime. If you are walking through a bad neighborhood late at night, it’s completely irrelevant that MOST black men are at home, sleeping. The only ones that matter to you at that point are the ones who are out there on the street with you.
“for a third thing, it’s unfair to those Black men to consider them potential criminals, just as it’s unfair to consider all men potential rapists;”
I don’t really get why it’s unfair. How is it “unfair” to a young black man who has been walking behind me for a couple of blocks if I duck into a coffee shop and let him pass before I continue on my way? How have I harmed him?
“and for a fourth, by cordoning yourself off from Black people, you do both yourself, and society, a tremendous disservice.”
Who’s talking about “cordoning off” black people in general? Obviously, MOST situations in day to day life don’t give rise to any apprehensions about one’s personal safety. I may have missed the comment you are responding to, but I’m going to give whoever wrote it the benefit of the doubt and assume they WEREN’T talking about walking out of a restaurant because the waiter is black or hiding in an airport restroom because the ticket agent is black. Again, I believe the situations most people are discussing here involve fear of random street crimes at the hands of young, urban blacks, not just the general menace to safety posed by black dentists, clerks, and real estate agents, for example.
The thing is, yes, if I was walking through a questionable neighborhood (like some I’ve lived in) late at night and walked passed a young black man who I’m guessing, from the smell and condition of his clothing, to not have or care to have any regular job,, some part of my mind would be going “be careful! Listen for footsteps! Walk as if you have a purpose!” or whatever. But the exact same thing would be going through my mind if I passed a young white man. The danger signals are the situation (darkness, bad neighborhood), the outfit, and being a young man.
Conrad, is that not true for you? If you pass that young man, will you feel no sense of danger at all if he’s white?
And in any case, that part of my mind is not rational. It’s a part of my mind that has been fed fears by news stories and crime on TV, the part of my mind that tells me to walk faster as I approach my own front door.
The chances of being murdered by a random street thug (of any color, or any sex, for that matter) are too remote to be worried about. It would be like refusing to walk on sidewalks because of the chance of being killed by a car, or refusing to play golf because of the chance of being hit and killed by a golf ball, or refusing to go to the beach because of the chance of dying in a sand hole. They are all extremely remote possibilities, and giving up walking in public or ever going to the beach is too great a sacrifice. (OTOH, I don’t mind losing golf.)
Well, no. That simply isn’t true in most cases. If you’re going to suggest that people are racist asses, you might want to double check how your numbers work.
The quotation you cite will allow you to reach a very limited conclusion, which isn’t about “danger.” Namely that
1) Your risk of homicides;
2) including all population;
3) including both strangers and non strangers;
4) is more likely to involve people of your own race (if you’re white) and
5) MUCH MUCH more likely to involve people of your own race (if you’re black.)
But…. so what? If we’re talking about preconceived judgments of people we haven’t met, on a street corner, those are “strangers.” And it turns out that black-on-white stranger homicide is higher than white-on-black stranger homicide.
To be precise (link here, see page 13) black-on-white homicides account for roughly 17% of all total stranger homicides. White-on-black homicides account for about 7% of the total stranger homicides. Not only do black-on-white homicides happen frequently in absolute terms, but they happen with MUCH more relative frequency based on rates: about ten times as high.
And of course, that’s just homicide. As we all know, the average risk of homicide is very small compared to the average risk of some other crime of violence. If you want to analyze the degree to which someone is a “racist ass” for distinguishing between group memberships, then you might want to include more things than poorly-chosen homicide numbers.
Sorry to pick on you, Varusz, but I want to point out that this is something like the 20th time I’ve been arguing with a conservative and they’ve brought up cocktail parties out of the blue. And usually specifically New York City or DC cocktail parties.
It’s kind of weird, frankly. I’m beginning to wonder if conservatives believe that liberals go to cocktail parties ALL THE TIME or something. (For the record, I’ve never been to a cocktail party.)
The other liberals have cocktail parties all the time. They don’t invite you because the one time they did, you started going on about how you always think about me in the shower. Nobody wants to hear that.
Maybe the cocktail parties are the new “limousines” back when the going term was “limousine liberal” 20 years ago.
I haven’t heard the cocktail party thing from anyone else, unless it was lodged in my subconscious somewhere. It just sounded like a good place for something to be perfectly AWFUL.
@364: I can easily imagine being in a situation where a white guy sets off my internal “danger!” alarm. However, all things held equal, it’s seems less likely a white guy will trigger that alarm because it’s less likely the white guy in fact will be a criminal. That may sound harsh, so let me elaborate:
We’re focusing on race, but this is really about a lot of other signals. If I’m at a subway stop at night, and there’s only one other person there waiting for a train, if that other person is in a suit reading a newspaper, then it’s not going to make any difference to me whether that person is white or black. While the situation itself may warrant a degree of paranoia (just being in that setting with only one other person), my mind would process the available information and decide that the other person was not a threat but simply another working-stiff commuter waiting for his train (let’s call him “Commuter B”).
At the same time, if we’re being realistic about demographics, it’s significantly less likely that Commuter B will be black than that he’ll be white. Blacks are less likely to have jobs — unemployment something like 16% — and, I would think, far less likely to go to work wearing a suit.
By the same token, if the only other person at the station is a young guy dressed like a rapper who looks like he’s sizing me up, then my “danger!” alarm is going to start beeping pretty loudly whether that “rapper” looks more like Snoop Dog or Eminem. It’s not really the race of the person that’s making me nervous, it’s being young, male, not looking like a commuter or a student, and the fact that the person is looking me over that’s making me nervous.
Again, however, the statistical distribution of unkempt, thug-appearing young men throughout the population appears to be such that blacks are overrepresented within this group. If proportionately fewer young black men ARE, in fact, affluent, employed, stroller-pushing dads, textbook-packing college students, etc., it stands to reason that proportionately more of them are going to look like someone who might be a threat.
People may not be able to correctly categorize strangers as between “safe/non-threatening” and “hmmm, I’m not sure about this guy,” but there are certain traits or signals one can feel reasonably confident in using, e.g., “suit-wearing guy carrying a briefcase = unlikely to mug me.” It so happens that whites are probably somewhat overrepresented among those displaying “safe” signals while blacks are probably overrepresented among those displaying “hmmm, not sure” signals. And, overall, that comports with the reality that blacks are statistically more likely to be criminals.
Moreover, I don’t think that it’s at all irrational to stereotype or “profile” strangers in this way. It’s perfectly rational, even though it’s obviously not going to make you 100% safe.
As for the notion that crime is such a rare occurrence in general as to render it folly to try to avoid potential criminals by crossing the street, etc. (if that’s what you are saying), this ignores the fact that getting cracked in the side of one’s head with a gun just once every 20-30 years may be often enough to cause some serious problems in your life. It’s true that, on any given occasion, you are probably not reducing your risk of being a victim all that much. However, you take precautions every day in the hope of avoiding it ever happening. It’s like locking your front door when you leave the house: Fail to do this once and you’re unlikely that day to be burglarized. But if you NEVER lock your front door, eventually someone is going to walk in, don’t you think?
Re: It’s kind of weird, frankly. I’m beginning to wonder if conservatives believe that liberals go to cocktail parties ALL THE TIME or something. (For the record, I’ve never been to a cocktail party.)
I do sometimes go to cocktail parties, but I specifically refer to “Georgetown cocktail parties” or “Santa Monica cocktail parties” when I’m referring to cultural liberalism.
Conrad,
Are you really just phoning it in today? To start off, you’re right that I don’t think much of Sowell. He’s a libertarian capitalism, I’m a (moderately authoritarian) socialist, so it’s unsurprising we have very few points of agreement. That being said, ideology aside, I brought up the fact that he’s an economist to point out that on this particular subject, he’s no better than an educated layman, not a cognitive scientist. I’m not a cognitive scientist either, but at least I’m trained in biology rather than economics.
On this specific claim “I thought the point being made was that when blacks were held to the same standard as everyone else, they tended to do better in absolute terms — or at least more of them exceled in absolute terms”.
No, that’s simply wrong. You may or may not find it an outlandish claim, but it happens to be one. The Black-White test score gap is still very large, but it’s substantially narrower today than in 1973, when we started systematically measuring. (And presumably even smaller than in the 1960s, unless you think Black people were scoring very well under segregation).
Re: It would seem fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that if black children and their parents understood that race was not going to serve as any kind of advantage in terms of getting into college, getting a job, etc., that this would prompt more of them to aim for and attain a higher level of achievement.
This is nonsensical. Even if race does serve as an advantage (and it should), higher achievement *also* serves as an advantage, for all Black students except the ones at the very top. (Say, the ones with SAT scores of 1400+. There are sufficiently few of those they don’t really matter to the broader argument). It is very much to the advantage of a Black student who scores 1300 to try to score 1400 instead: it’s even more to the advantage of a Black student who scores 1100 to try and score 1200. Arguably, for those low-scoring students who would not get into a decent college at all without affirmative action, increasing their test scores would have *more* marginal benefit than it would if affirmative action didn’t exist (it could make the difference between, say, going to a third-tier and a first-tier state school).
Also, I see no reason to believe the achievement gap between Black and White students, such as it is, is because the Black students don’t value education or don’t work hard.
Re: Who’s talking about “cordoning off” black people in general? Obviously, MOST situations in day to day life don’t give rise to any apprehensions about one’s personal safety.
Well, let’s put it this way. I don’t live in Boston now, but I do visit there a couple of times a year, and when I do, I worship at a majority Black church in a fairly poor, largely Black section of town. I could worship at a substantially more upper-middle class church closer to where my mom lives, and that would arguably be lower ‘risk’, but that’s hardly a particular consideration of mine. I prefer to worship together with a bunch of people who actually believe in the articles of their faith, instead of watering them down to pretty stories. And I’m willing to accept a slightly higher elevation of the (very small) risk that I’ll be a crime victim. If you live your life governed by fear, you’re likely to miss out on the richness of what life has to offer.
In point of fact, the only times I’ve been a crime victim in America have been in trendy, prosperous white neighborhoods, and the only time I’ve been called a slur (it was ‘f*****’ in my case, though I happen to be straight) it was by drunk white folks.
… and that would be relevant if we were comparing interracial violence generally, but we weren’t, or at least, I wasn’t. When discussing rates of stranger violence, GNW, it’s important to compare the relevant statistics.
I was discussing how reasonable it is for white people to racially profile black people and treat them differently (Henceforth to be known as “acting like a racist ass,” a description which is perfectly accurate, now matter how shrill and theatrically offended the whining gets.) because of the differing violent crime rates. When making that comparison, I am looking at ‘violent crimes against white people.’
And, to be precise (link here, see page 13, table 20a) though it’s true that black-on-white stranger homicide is higher than white-on-black stranger homicide, it’s also true that white-on white stranger homicide is higher than both.
You chastise me for not looking at stranger homicide specifically, but that’s precisely what I’m doing. You’re actually not. You’re looking at “stranger homicide that crosses racial boundaries,” which begs the question, since my point was that if you’re a white person you’re much more likely to be a victim of a homicide performed by another white person than you are to be a victim of a homicide performed by a black person, and that considering that, if you’re the kind of person who goes around profiling the people you meet, profiling white people seems to make more sense.
—Myca
Hector_St_Clare,
Sowell gave the specific example in one of his books about a couple of still-segregated black schools in the early 1960s that absolutely demanded punctuality, work, discipline etc. And the result was that they had much higher achievement levels at that school. That was before affirmative action. His point was that maybe the way to go would be to demand much more instead of just saying, “well, they’re black, so let’s just give them affirmative action”.
I’m not going to look it up, though.
“Henceforth to be known as “acting like a racist ass,” a description which is perfectly accurate, now matter how shrill and theatrically offended the whining gets.”
————–
I noted that these childish insults don’t really help the discussion. Ampersand then asked me to point out where anyone had called someone racist. I pointed it out. That’s about the extent that the shrill and theatrically offended were whining.
I don’t know what your objective is with that kind of talk.
“Racist” is a descriptor. It can be either accurate or not.
I’ve tried very hard to keep my focus on actions rather than people. I’m not calling you or Conrad, “racists.” I don’t know what’s in your mind, your soul, etc, and I’m not particularly interested.
I’m saying that profiling black people and treating them differently because of crime statistics is a racist thing to do. I say this because it is.
See how that works? Not talking about you. Talking about your action.
—Myca
@ 370: “That being said, ideology aside, I brought up the fact that he’s an economist to point out that on this particular subject, he’s no better than an educated layman, not a cognitive scientist. I’m not a cognitive scientist either, but at least I’m trained in biology rather than economics. ”
But if you’re not claiming the relevant expertise either, what’s the point of criticizing Sowell’s supposed lack of credentials? I’m not saying he’s the ultimate authority, but hasn’t he proven himself to have sufficient experience, intelligence, and data-synthesis abilities to at least have his observations taken seriously? (Also, he did author a book called “Intelligence and Ethnicity,” so it seems safe to say he’s probably SOMEWHAT conversant on the subject of the black-white achievement gap. )
Re: my “outlandish” claim: This is probably a pointless debate to be having with a socialist, since you’re probably not a big believer in effects of incentives in general. Try to look at it this way: Let’s say, under one system, OUTCOME = WORK. Under another system, OUTCOME = (WORK +/- RACE). Assuming race is an immutable trait, then the former system obviously makes WORK more important in determining outcome. You can argue that it more WORK leads to better OUTCOME under both systems, but it doesn’t change the fact that WORK is more important under the first system than it is under the second.
“Also, I see no reason to believe the achievement gap between Black and White students, such as it is, is because the Black students don’t value education or don’t work hard.”
I’m not even clear on why we’re talking about the achievement gap. I was talking about achievement in ABSOLUTE terms, not comparative terms. The point, again, was that if blacks had to compete on the same terms as everyone else, this would push many of them to succeed on their own merits beyond what they would do under a system in which they are rewarded for a so-so level of achievement. I don’t think this is quite the non-sequitur you are making it out to be.
“And I’m willing to accept a slightly higher elevation of the (very small) risk that I’ll be a crime victim. If you live your life governed by fear, you’re likely to miss out on the richness of what life has to offer.”
Wonderful. Please continue to accept whatever level of risk you want in exchange for whatever level of reward you seek. Please also allow others to make the same judgment concerning their own lives.
“if you’re a white person you’re much more likely to be a victim of a homicide performed by another white person than you are to be a victim of a homicide performed by a black person,”
That’s true only because there are so many more white people in the U.S. than black people. The fact remains that if you encounter a random stranger on the street, the chances of his being a violent criminal are significantly greater if he’s black than if he’s white. If you personally don’t want to act on that knowledge in terms of your own behavior, that’s your choice, of course.
Also @ 371: This discussion reminds me of the statistics one hears about how most auto accidents happen within, say, 5 miles of one’s home. It’s not because the roads within that 5-mile zone are inherently more dangerous than outside the zone, it’s because a driver spends more time on the roads within a short distance of his or her home than anywhere else.
I have been to a couple of cocktail parties, but only because my sister and her friends were going through a “Mad Men” phase for a while when they thought it was fun to dress up in cocktail dresses and pearls and have cocktail parties and serve old-fashioned sorts of drinks.
Not true. In both cases, the chances of his (or her) being a violent criminal, assuming there are no other indicators to go on but skin color, are so low as to be negligible.
“Significantly greater” and “both negligible” are not (automatically) in conflict.
They are in the context of ‘therefore using them as a guide to behavior.’
This is why statements like “Product BLAH doubles your chance of cancer” are so useless (and it’s generally people on my side of the political divide who do this). Without knowing if that means it takes your chance from 5% to 10%, from 1% to 2%, or (more likely) from 0.0000000001% to 0.0000000002%, or how that increase compares to other factors like driving a car, living in a city, etc, it doesn’t therefore strongly imply anything about your behavior.
—Myca
Hmm … it also depends on the meaning of, “significantly greater.” Depending on how you parse that, saying, “they’re both negligible,” may be read as denying the ‘significantly’ part.
—Myca
@ 374: I don’t treat strangers differently because they are black. My comment 369 addresses this. What I do (as most people do, I think) is make a mental judgment as to whether someone seems like they are a potential threat or not based on any number of signals. I used the example that if someone is wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, I’m likely to classify them as “safe.” Now, applying that particular criterion, I am more likely to have deemed a white guy “safe” than a black guy, that’s only because a guy dressed in a suit and carrying a briefcase is more likely to be white than black.
Also, it’s not about “treating” the possibly-not-safe guy differently. If I cross the street or if I duck into a coffee shop at the sound of approaching footsteps, I haven’t TREATED the other pedestrian fairly or unfairly. I haven’t done anything to that person. You say you are focused solely on racist ACTIONS, but what action(s) toward that other person are you actually referring to?
“They are in the context of ‘therefore using them as a guide to behavior.’”
Not really. Depends on the consequence.
Smoking cigarettes greatly increases your chance of getting lung cancer. The probability that you will get lung cancer, whether you smoke or not, is essentially negligible. (About 135,000 deaths a year; not even 1 in 3000 Americans. It’s unmeasurable, in terms of common sense harm avoidance.)
Is it logical to stop smoking cigarettes, to avoid lung cancer? Sure it is, because “horrific consequence times small percentage = X seriousness” and X isn’t trivial.
I don’t think this is a great example. I just googled for some numbers, and it seems like different studies have come to different conclusions (at least partially because they’re defining “smoker” differently), but it looks like, for someone who smokes for most of their adult life, there’s a 10-25% chance of getting lung cancer, as compared to somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.2% for people who never smoked.
I appreciate Ampersand’s point that if we just selected some individual randomly from among 330 million Americans, then there would be no appreciable difference in the risk of that person’s being a violent criminal depending on whether they were black or white. However, I think the discussion we are having here concerns the specific topic of “street crime.” Thus, if you were walking alone, after dark, in an urban area, and you encountered an approaching stranger, is the stranger significantly more like to be a threat of he is black than if he is white. Personally, I’m not going to feel safe either way, but statistically, I think I’m safer if the stranger happens to be white. And that’s without regard to whether I’M black or white, isn’t it?
Anyway, this isn’t just a question of race, but age and, of course, socioeconomics as well. Obviously if the stranger is 70 years old, nobody is likely to regard his race as a significant factor. Likewise, if the stranger is a woman, she is vastly less likely to be a mugger. Same if he or she is wearing a suit and tie. The phenomenon of black street crime is (as I understand it) largely a phenomenon of young, male, black, urban street crime. Somewhere I read that young blacks who make up something like 3 percent of the U.S. population commit something like 40 percent of the murders.
Smoking-related cancers are ~85% of the total. So yes, smokers or former smokers take 85% of the hit…from this relatively small (in common-sense-accessible terms) killer. 85% of 1 in 3000 is still tiddly-dick; given that “current or former smokers” is about half of us, it isn’t like us ex-smokers are personally spotting the grim reaper over our shoulders every minute or two, while the pristine of lung never spot the bony fellow.
Smoking is IMHO a GREAT example, because the absolute numbers are large (100 something thousand every year is a lot of stiffs) just like with crime, but the individual actual risk is very small for most people.
If “significantly” refers to “a difference that matters in the real world,” then no, there isn’t a significant difference. Black OR white (or other), the odds of a random stranger being not just a violent criminal (a bit rare), but the kind of murderer who attacks strangers on the street (extremely rare), is tiny regardless of race.
By the way, I live in an urban area, work late often, and have no driver’s license – meaning that I find myself “walking alone, after dark, in an urban area” pretty frequently.
According to this study (pdf link), the odds of a male smoker (not enough studies on women to calculate those odds) dying due to a disease caused by smoking varies from between 1 in 50 and 1 in 3. (See table 3 on page 427).
All of this stuff belong under the general category of “things we do to be safer over the long run.” Even though the risk of lung cancer isn’t enormous, even for smokers, smart people will avoid cigarettes for that reason the same way they avoid playing golf during thunderstorms, they wear seatbelts in their cars, they get regular mammograms, etc. You wouldn’t arbitrarily NOT adopt one of these practices on the theory that the underlying risk is insignificant. Over a long lifetime, you estimate that doing all of these things (and a hundred or so others) will significantly increase your chances of staying health or safety.
I guess the debate we are having is whether steering clear of young, black male strangers out on the street is justified by the same rationale. I’d say it is, but I wouldn’t stop with young black men: I’d extend it at least to young men from lower socioeconomic groups. I wouldn’t avoid adult women, older folks, affluent-, professional- looking people, or students.
@ 388: “If ‘significantly’ refers to ‘a difference that matters in the real world,’ then no, there isn’t a significant difference. Black OR white (or other), the odds of a random stranger being not just a violent criminal (a bit rare), but the kind of murderer who attacks strangers on the street (extremely rare), is tiny regardless of race.”
What’s your basis for saying there’s no “real world” difference? It sounds like you just feel safe walking home at night in general, and therefore you don’t think there’s much chance of encountering any criminals, black or white. But we know street crime exists at levels that are real and measureable (not imaginary or trivially small), whether or not it has happened to you. The question is, given that street crime exists and IS a risk for people walking alone at night in urban areas, is it more of a risk coming from a black stranger or a white stranger … or is there literally no difference? If you think there’s no difference as between black and white, I guess I’m not clear on how you square that with racial differences in crime statistics.
BTW, I’m not sure why you are focusing on random murders by strangers in the street as opposed to muggings, robberies, assaults, etc., which are a lot more commonplace.
Amp, they don’t bother you because you look so abjectly poor. Muggers who came out for $2 to get a crack vial slip change into your coat pockets in the wintertime.
Note to self: touch up grey in hair, bring cane, wear nice suit, carry textbook. Then mug the shit out of Conrad.
This all goes to show that you can judge a book by its cover.
I was once mugged for 15 cents. And they turned me into a newt!
@ 392: Hate crime! Haaate crime!
Are we talking about violence (of any type,) homicide specifically, or murder? Those are completely different things and the arguments will be completely different.
But no matter which it is, almost all of us do some filtering of risk, a/k/a “profiling.” You can rationally eliminate an enormous group of people because they are so unlikely to spontaneously initiate violence. The risk that the 80-year old woman holding her granddaughter’s hand and feeding birds is basically zero. That is profiling, in a positive way. The risk from the two 19-year old kids who are smoking and drinking in the alleyway, is much, much, higher. That’s profiling, too. But it’s the type of “profiling” that makes sense.
Now: Will those kids attack you? Almost certainly not; the violence statistics are relatively low. Still, we’re not rational actors: we worry about plane crashes even though we’re more likely to die due to a cell phone call while driving, etc. And as it happens, many people feel strongly that they wish to avoid interpersonal violence, even if it’s something that would objectively be more rare or less troublesome than other things which we do not avoid.
When I wrote:
What I intended to write was:
Sorry for creating confusion with my brain fart.
Robert, it’s true – no one can actually make money drawing comics about Hasidic Jews (I’m amazed anyone ever bought that story). Walking around in that coat and depending on the mercy of crack addicts is actually my primary form of winter income (which reminds me, thanks for that buck you slipped me). In summers, of course, I work as a pool boy.
Of course, if you are profiling every black person who isn’t a grandmother as a violent threat, you are committing many, many micro-aggressions (assuming you aren’t posting from your all-white walled compound in Idaho) and making the world a worse place on a daily basis. The black grandmother, of course, is only getting profiled as a non-violent criminal threat on a daily basis, so good job committing fewer racist micro-aggressions against her.
But hey, I’m sure your preference for taking not particularly useful steps to prevent violence to yourself is worth engaging in daily acts of racist micro-aggression and totally morally justified. It just requires treating black people as morally nonexistent in your ethics.
And hey, to bring this back around to the original topic, what’s a dead innocent kid in the line of avoiding interpersonal violence? If some black people need to be bodily sacrificed for white (or Hispanic or even black) people to feel safe, no big deal.
Oh dear, there I went and called some actions racist (you know, the racist ones). How wrong of me. At least I didn’t call any of you racists. What is the socially permissible word for people who publicly advocate for engaging in racist actions, anyway?
“And as it happens, many people feel strongly that they wish to avoid interpersonal violence, even if it’s something that would objectively be more rare or less troublesome than other things which we do not avoid.”
Things we do not avoid like engaging in microaggressions against black people.