Almost don't feel the need to post this because of your last post Tom but I'll post regardless.

At first you said, "Can we not withhold judgment?"  Then you say, "Bro, of course you can have an opinion. Have at it. I’m totally fine with that."
 
Brandon:  What would my judgment be other than my opinion?  I don't have a opinion on what he ate for breakfast that morning.  I have an opinion on what happened.  Its not like you can have an opinion on this without SOME judgment Tom.
 
Tom: Do YOU require an opinion on his guilt or innocence?
 
Brandon:  I can't HELP but have one that LEANS in a particular direction.  One that I'm entitled to have by the way.
 
Tom:  It seems like you think that since I won’t agree he’s guilty I must think he’s innocent. But I don’t know either.
 
Brandon: Of course you don't KNOW either.  But you aren't without some semblance or inkling or gut level feeling that the guy is innocent or guilty are you?  Not legally, but intuitively and morally.
 
Tom: I don’t have an opinion on Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. He certain was the OCASSION of the altercation. Sure, had he not been out and about that evening this wouldn’t have happened. In THAT sense sure, he shares responsibility. But so do his parents for giving birth to him, but that’s not the kind of ‘responsibility’ we’re talking about. You mean he’s directly morally responsible for Treyvon’s death. I honestly can’t say that since that would mean rendering a final judgment on the evidence, and I don’t have all that on hand. I’m happy leaving that to the jury.

Brandon:  Well actually he IS DIRECTLY responsible for Trayvon's death.  There's no doubt there.  He pulled a gun.  Then pulled a trigger in which a glock struck the bullet in which the bullet went flying out through the barrel and into another person's chest killing that person.  His parents aren't responsible for his Trayvon's death in the same way that Zimmermann himself is. Saying that is like saying that George Washington was responsible for his death because it happened in a country he founded or that the gun manufacture is responsible.  That is not relevant to the case. Also, the question I'm asking is not a legal one which you keep insisting on.  I'm asking about an intuitive one.  Are you going to say that when all is accounted for that that will in fact mean that Zimmerman is innocent?  All the evidence may point in that direction but that doesn't mean he is on an intuitive gut level. And seeing as you AGREE that Zimmerman was the occasion of the altercation--along with other pieces of evidence such as his aggression, would that not shed SOME light on the issue intuitively speaking?

Tom: But Brandon, you go from YOU (an uninvolved observer forming an opinion that you admit is not legal and isn’t sufficient for a court of law) having “an opinion” to “OUR totally letting him off the hook.” But your opinion can’t put him ON the hook OR get him off. It’s just your opinion. So which opinion do you want to discuss—your free opinion to conclude his guilt based on the evidence you see on the news (which you admit is insufficient for a court of law) OR the opinion of the jurors? It’s the jurors who decide to hook him or not. Do you need an opinion in order for them to do their job?

Brandon:  That's the thing Tommy.  I'm not in a court room.  So I CAN form an opinion about his guilt or innocence.  It could very well be that Zimmerman acted rashly and aggressively instigating and heightening the level of animosity in which Trayvon reacts and in now in which case Zimmerman reacts with even greater force. And yet, all the evidence may do is reveal that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and on legal grounds shot and killed a 17 year old boy. Again, watch Rampart and see how the character that Woody Harrelson plays WEASELS his way out of jail because there is no evidence proving otherwise.  Its amazing.

Tom:  It’s unreasonable to think public opinion should not be formed. I’m not saying that. I’m saying it’s just public opinion. Sometimes it’s right. Sometimes it’s wrong. OJ killed his wife and her lover (IMO). He got off. Good lawyer. It happens. The system is imperfect. But it’s better than polling public opinion.

Brandon:  But that's all I'm doing.  We're not in a court room on these boards.  So lay out the relevant cards.  Again, Zimmerman is the occassion for the death of Trayvon Martin.  Not you or me, but those two.  It didn't happen at his birth or near his birth. It happened 28 years later for one person who knew he was carrying and a kid 17 years later walking home armed with Skittles and Tea.  It didn't happen that morning it happened later that night in a Florida neighbourhood not in Windsor/Detroit or St. Paul MN. I lean toward not just Zimmerman's existence for the cause of Trayvon's death but having some level of intentionality.

Brandon: I can't HELP but have one that LEANS in a particular direction.

Tom: Sure you can. We CHOOSE our opinions in cases like these. They don’t choose us. One can choose to withhold judgment is what I mean.

Brandon: You aren't without some semblance or inkling or gut level feeling that the guy is innocent or guilty are you? Not legally, but intuitively and morally.

Tom: Absolutely not. For ME (just me) that would border on injustice.

Brandon: Well actually he IS DIRECTLY responsible for Trayvon's death.

Tom: Right. But you didn’t ask me about direct responsibility (did he pull the trigger and set in motion a chain of events—finger to trigger to bullet to Tray’s death). You asked me if I thought he was “morally culpable” (that is, guilty of murder or manslaughter). I don’t have any moral intuitions, given the evidence, that he’s is so guilty.

-----------------------

Tom: But Brandon, you go from YOU (an uninvolved observer forming an opinion that you admit is not legal and isn’t sufficient for a court of law) having “an opinion” to “OUR totally letting him off the hook.” But your opinion can’t put him ON the hook OR get him off. It’s just your opinion. So which opinion do you want to discuss—your free opinion to conclude his guilt based on the evidence you see on the news (which you admit is insufficient for a court of law) OR the opinion of the jurors? It’s the jurors who decide to hook him or not. Do you need an opinion in order for them to do their job?

Brandon: That's the thing Tommy. I'm not in a court room. So I CAN form an opinion about his guilt or innocence.

Tom: You can. Go for it. But what has your freedom to form this private opinion got to do with “our totally letting him off the hook”? You asked this question (“Are we gonna totally let him off the hook?”) to justify your forming a private opinion outside the court room. But again, what does your private opinion have to do with Zimmerman’s actual guilt or his getting off the hook? Nothing. If you form no opinion whatsoever, will this have anything to do with whether Zimmerman gets on or off the hook? No. When it comes to the trial, THEN asking “Are we [i.e., our justice system] gonna totally let him off the hook?” makes sense.

Brandon: But that's all I'm doing. We're not in a court room on these boards. So lay out the relevant cards.

Tom: Why? Why lay out the cards? What compels you to investigate the evidence and form and opinion? Did somebody ask us to do that? Does the world NEED us to do that? No. Does any good usually come from it? No. Usually riots and trouble follow when people decide a person’s guilt or innocence ahead of time. You say you can’t HELP but do so. Let me suggest that you CAN help doing so, that you in fact choose to do so. Others can investigate the available evidence and choose to withhold judgment (i.e., choose not to attempt to render a private judgment re: Zimmerman’s guilt/innocence). It’s not difficult to do.

I’m not saying that the public should not follow important court cases or be unconcerned with systemic bias. It’s in our interest to hold public official responsible. So we have to be educated and aware, yes. But to judge a man’s guilt ahead of time when all the evidence isn’t in and no court has sat in judgment? That doesn’t seem wise FOR ME.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/30/2012 3:00:52 PM (GMT-5)

Asher: I guess it's hard to muster much "give a damn"...

Jeff: Yeah. It's the serenity prayer all over again. Gotta invest energy where it's probable we can make some positive difference.

As I see it, the press is very good at wasting people's time and stirring up unwarranted emotion, up to and including provoking murder. Think of the Rodney King ordeal. Had all the facts been disclosed from the get-go, the vast majority of people would have concluded:

1) The one cop went too far just like the jury decided,

2) It was relatively understandable that the cop lost it given the antecedent high-speed chase, initial physical resistance put forth by Rodney, etc.

In other words, there was nothing particularly outlandish about it. Then the public finds out about King's prior criminal record. THEN the press trots King out to ask the world "why can't we all get along?" And we wonder why people don't trust the press to tell the whole, relevant truth in these matters? The press jumps through hoops to discredit themselves.

I've been pulled over by cops for trivial matters. They have treated me like a criminal for no reason at all. I can't imagine how they would treat me if I "sassed" them or acted equivocally. I'm white. Bullyism isn't always about race, per se, even when racial stereotypes play INTO it. Don't want to be bullied? Treat "the authorities" the way Daniel treated the "head of gold." It is not for nothing that scripture says to "render fear to whom fear." Our form of government doesn't change the psychology that grounds that duty. We contend for our rights in courts, not to police. The latter is unwise.

But the press thinks our form of government changes all this. It doesn't. People are what they are. Laws don't change hearts, but they can cause some injustice to go covert. The latter can be worse in some ways than the alternative. This stuff is never as no-brainer as it seems. Because the problem is in the HEART of government personnel. They can be as criminal as those they are "governing." Indeed, it's the libertarians who appeal to justice so as to make it more obvious when the government encroaches into jurisdictions where it can't ACTUALLY effect a lesser of evils.

They were also far more likely to think the children pictured are friends and to believe their parents would like them to be friends. In fact, only 38% of black children had a negative interpretation of the pictures, whereas almost double -- a full 70% of white kids -- felt something negative was happening.

Look at the stats.

Here's my thing. I think there's SOMETHING to the idea that the press can adversely impact the chance of an objective trial. How does it help to have Alton Sharpton chanting no justice no peace PRIOR to the trial when there are more objective ways, respectful of the nature of legal procedure, to accomplish the same end. If I did that by myself, I would probably be jailed for obstruction of justice. People HAVE been jailed for similar threats to the legal process. And people SEE that shameless hypocrisy.

If all the energy spent threatening people on the assumption that the truth is totally known already was spent resisting the erosion of freedom of information acts and even increasing those freedoms, we could accomplish a lot more. We have to work together to get any meaningful change vs. superficial change. And the only way that's gonna happen is if people quit assuming they know everything just because they watch a largely Democratic press which has both a financial AND political interest in keeping race conflict alive and well.

Do you hear Obama and Sharpton advocating capital punishment for cops who kill illegally (or Zimmerman, for that matter)? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. When Sharpton means, by justice, bona-fide justice, he'll get more support. Until then, people are RIGHTLY suspicious of his motives. I don't trust the government. But the press is just the 4th branch of government.

Police abuse power on all races all the time. Most people I know fall into 2 camps--those that think cops' abuse of power is relatively mild AND necessary and those that think cops have WAY too much discretion AND immunity from accountability, given the moral character of the average cop. I think the latter is true, but I also think the problem is, in part, that the Obama's and Bush's of the world oppose just punishment. The less justice, the more disrespectful people act towards law enforcement. The more disrespectful that behavior gets, the more blurred the lines get between what should be tolerated and what is a genuine threat to a cop. The government has allowed the incivility of society to grow like a cancer to gain their favor for elections. We have to lay blame EVERYWHERE it belongs and not look with tunnel vision.

We have too little of certain freedoms, and too many of others. And this is by the very design of our government. It's in THEIR interest to keep the insanity going. They dole out just enough deterrence to keep the votes coming, and not one whit more. And yet deterrence is what God instituted government FOR.

I'm curious. Did the case you posted just above, D, get national press? I truly don't know, cause I don't much pay attention to the news any more. But at face value, it sounds more radical than the Florida case. So I'm wondering if I just missed it.

I guess I need to start watching the video clips again. Last I saw, the press had determined Zimmerman was guilty. The thing is, even if he's innocent, per the letter of the law, isn't this an indication about how incivil our society has gotten? IOW, with this degree of incivility, how can the line between obnoxiousness and threatening behavior not get blurrier all the time? I think the line is not the biggest part of the problem. The problem is that our government plays politics with public opinion. If government officials came out in UNITY saying,

"You know guys, it may very well be that faulty judgments WILL be made in these kinds of cases, but faulty judgments the other way will ALSO be made, so if you want to remain safe/alive, DON'T be UNNECESSARILY provocative,"

then a lot more valuable education could come of these incidents. Laws just ARE utilitarian to some extent. They never can guarantee that ALL guilty parties will get their just deserts in this life. Some of the burden of wise adjudication lies squarely upon ourselves in this world. This is why Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Because it's an instance of OVERCOMING evil with GOOD where the law doesn't protect you. The risky approach (to prove one's bravado) is just that--RISKY. And I'm not even taking sides in saying this. I'm just saying a little knowledge of human nature has to kick in to our consciousness every now and then to avoid certain evils in this world.