Michale.....

Michale....

I don't have a problem with that, per se...

Michale.....

the editor in chief's remarks on march 28 actually do provide good balance to the earlier reporting. also, the april 4 hypothesis of 2 confrontations, one subsequent to the other, seems to explain the accounts coming from both sides. stripped of all other motivations or assumptions, it goes thus:

1. GZ follows TM, TM starts running.
2. TM approaches GZ (in truck) and asks if he's being followed. GZ says no.
3. TM goes home, but stays outside.
4. GZ gets out of his truck and tries to locate TM on foot.
5. TM sees GZ coming and doubles back to confront him.
6. all hell breaks loose.

http://wagist.com

Lots of really good, really indepth information there...

Fair warning, it's 70%-80% people who think like I do.. :D

Michale...

You DO get HDP (Hazard Duty Pay) right?? :D

two questions though, you can answer them and i'll let the situation stand. first, if those officers did know zimmerman from previous encounters and had been disciplined as a result, does that not generate the alternate theory that they were over-cautious in investigating him because they knew he was legally savvy and might cause them problems (as opposed to an unknown, dead teen who looked to them like a perp)?

It definitely could...

The investigative process (or at least MY investigative process in the day) was to create a "chain of evidence". Each piece of evidence is a link in the chain. Each evidence "link" supports or corroborates the "link" on either side of itself.

Some pieces of evidence (the GFs phone call, the initial ABC video, etc etc) have no corroboration. Those "links" are not discarded, merely put in an "Outlier" column to see if they will "fit" later on..

While it's entirely possible and even "plausible" that SPD handled GZ with kid gloves because of this earlier racial incident, there really doesn't seem to be any supportive evidence..

At the risk of sounding arrogant (too late!! :D), what you see as a "rush to judgment" on behalf of the SPD, my training and experience tells me that it was a logical and rational decision based on the available evidence..

SPD had a beaten and bloodied victim. They had a "thug" (in a cops eyes, a young male with tats and teeth grill = thug) on the ground and several eyewitnesses attesting to what occurred.

It's a pretty reasonable conclusion the SPD came up to..

second, how does any of this relate to zimmerman's judgment in carrying a concealed firearm in the first place? are concealed firearms not generally against the guidelines for neighborhood watchmen? and if he hadn't been carrying, would he have been as quick to leave his vehicle and continue to follow, instead of backing off as the police dispatch suggested?

GZ was a cop wannabe. He also had the authority to pursue and he knew it.. But the 911 call shows that GZ said "OK" at the suggestion and DID break off pursuit...

As to GZ's "judgement"... All I can say is that it's a GOOD thing that GZ was carrying that night. Chances are w/o a weapon, GZ would have done the exact same thing as he did, but the incident would have likely ended with GZ being dead (or worse) and not TM...

Michale.....

i know, it's like a train wreck, one really doesn't want to keep looking at it but it's near impossible to look away. i certainly don't have your experience in military or law enforcement (7th graders notwithstanding), so i'll have to take your word on that one. you'd also know better than i how police respond to the sons of former judges.

two questions though, you can answer them and i'll let the situation stand. first, if those officers did know zimmerman from previous encounters and had been disciplined as a result, does that not generate the alternate theory that they were over-cautious in investigating him because they knew he was legally savvy and might cause them problems (as opposed to an unknown, dead teen who looked to them like a perp)?

second, how does any of this relate to zimmerman's judgment in carrying a concealed firearm in the first place? are concealed firearms not generally against the guidelines for neighborhood watchmen? and if he hadn't been carrying, would he have been as quick to leave his vehicle and continue to follow, instead of backing off as the police dispatch suggested?

~joshua

i still believe he used poor judgment and that the police seemed too quick to grant him the benefit of the doubt

I can assure you, both from personal experience and from recent events that Sanford PD would not have ANY inclination to give GZ the benefit..

Personal Experience: Cops have a special disdain for "cop wannabe"s.. Sanford PD would likely be HARDER on GZ, not easier.

Recent Events: A while back, GZ was instrumental in pushing punishment on Sanford PD officers who covered up when the son of a SPD officer wantonly attacked a homeless man who was black. GZ organized the black community and handed out fliers to push for a public referendum on the assault and SPD's lack of responsiveness to it.. Matter of fact, two of the officers that GZ had a hand in getting punished actually responded to the TM shooting incident..

The fact that these officers ignored this and still did their jobs is a testament to their integrity...

(perhaps due to his dad's position).

His dad's position was, for all intents and purposes, a "Justice Of The Peace" position in rural Virginia a decade or more ago.. It's doubtful that SPD had even HEARD of GZ's father, let alone have it influence their treatment of his son.

Like I said, I don't want to revisit this issue and I am sure you don't either. But I just had to correct the record on these points.....

If you DO want to follow up on this, I'll be happy to provide you links that substantiate everything I just said...

i believe i did mention that they had insightful coverage of the earlier republican primaries...

I had you in mind when i mentioned those "few exceptions"... :D

Michale.....

When was the last time you heard that around here?? :D

i believe i did mention that they had insightful coverage of the earlier republican primaries... sometimes it can be difficult to divorce the actual point they're making (the heart of the point) from the propaganda in which it's dressed. i think fox intentionally invites confirmation bias.

~joshua

i really don't want to write any more about that either. the media manipulation was pretty bad. the phone call without the 911 operator asking what trayvon looked like, made it seem like zimmerman was being explicitly racist. i still believe he used poor judgment and that the police seemed too quick to grant him the benefit of the doubt (perhaps due to his dad's position). to me, both "sides" of the story seem extremely suspect.

as to obama's comments on Florida v HHS, i fully admit i haven't read the transcript and don't really know whether he overstepped or not. i suppose the measuring stick would be to compare his comments to those of other presidents in history, a comparison which i think CW is probably most qualified among us to conduct.

~joshua

With very few exceptions, no one here can make the same claim..

Want another example??

"Ya know, Fox News has a good point here.."

When was the last time you heard that around here?? :D

Michale.....

Absolutely... I DO try to do that, but I readily admit that I fail once in a while..

if conclusions are based on "facts" that may be incorrect or incomplete, then the conclusions may be flawed.

And then I (again, usually) adjust my conclusions accordingly...

I really don't want to dredge up this Trayvon Martin issue (I really don't) but it's a perfect example. Early on, it was reported that TM had been trespassing on private property. I said as much to CW when he asked about it.. But then it was learned that TM's father was staying with a GF on the property. And I never mentioned the trespass issue again..

My beef with a lot of people here (present company excepted :D) is that the refuse to change their positions, even when the FACTS clearly show they are wrong..

This latest issue with Obama's attack on the SCOTUS is a perfect example of this..

Obama frak'ed up. He said some things that were simply and unequivocally NOT TRUE..

Yet very few here can admit that Obama was wrong and that the Republicans who are calling him on it are right...

I make a concerted effort to see all sides of a debate or issue..

With very few exceptions, no one here can make the same claim..

Michale....

I start with the facts and then go where they take me.

isn't this a pre-established conclusion too? just because you think you do doesn't necessarily mean you do all the time, or that you have any particular time. your habit is to make assertions and claim them explicitly as factual, without adequate proof to establish their truthfulness. if conclusions are based on "facts" that may be incorrect or incomplete, then the conclusions may be flawed.

~joshua

Which is exactly what I said.

Which is exactly what I have been saying for months...

Political ideologues/fanatics start with a conclusion.....

"Republicans/Democrats are always wrong"

.... and then only pay attention to the evidence that supports this established conclusion.

It's why I get so frustrated with a lot of people here.

They claim to honor and cherish "facts" but the ONLY facts they want to hear are the facts that support their pre-established conclusion.

That, on issues where the two Partys are on oppisite sides, Democrats are always right and Republicans are always wrong.

Me??

I start with the facts and then go where they take me.

Sometimes (often) they show me that Republicans are wrong. Sometimes (often) they show me that Democrats are wrong..

It's fact-based positions, as opposed to a position-based facts.

Michale....

did you read the article?

"Being open to influence also means that we are fully aware of the very human dynamic of confirmation bias. Sometimes we like to think we are open to being influenced when what we are really attempting to do is to confirm what we believe."

The problem is, everyone CLAIMS to listen...

But most only hear what they want to hear..

Facts???

Facts are only for peons who have no ideology....

Michale....

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/04/a-willingness-to-be-influenced/

"Now the biggest issue in our political system and most likely for most of us in our lives is being open to influence. It is a skill. It is hard to do. It means listening."

While attending OCS I was assigned armory duties while the platoon was at chow.

It sounds glamorous, I know ( :D ), but it consisted of sitting in a parking lot guarding a bunch of weapons while everyone was in eating..

Anyways, a group of TIs were down a ways from me, shootin' the bull.. A two-star walked by and the TIs snapped to attention and saluted, saying, "Good evening, sir"...

Of course, I hadn't noticed the general, because I was busy making sure my weapons didn't run away. Hearing the TIs, I turned, snapped to attention, saluted smartly and said, "Good evening sir!"....

After the general had past, Captain Saunders yelled over at me, "Hey Worley!! Would you have even noticed the general if we hadn't said anything!"...

I yelled back, "Yes sir! I just thought ya'all being of a higher rank, you should salute first!!"...

Saunders yelled back, "You tap dance better than any candidate I have met to date!"

I yelled, "THANK YOU SIR!!!"

The reason I bring all that up is this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

Carney tap dances better than ANY Press Sec I have ever met.... :D

Michale.....

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/04/03/my-professor-my-judge-and-the-doctrine-of-judicial-review/

And the hits just keep on coming...

Michale.....

"the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute, though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/obamas-supreme-court-comments-become-political-football-as-justice-preps/#ixzz1rBksoq8o

And it's the COURTS that decides what those appropriate cases are.

NOT the Executive Branch...

I predict a follow-up homework assignment from the Judiciary Branch ordering the Obama Administration to state who decides what cases are appropriate...

"Who run BarterTown?"
-MasterBlaster, MAD MAX: BEYOND THUNDERDOME

:D

Michale.....

I am very anxious to read Obama's "homework assignment" after the Federal Appeals court whacked his wee-wee over his statements attacking the courts. :D

I have to wonder if it will be sufficiently groveling to appease the Judicial Branch..

Somehow, I doubt it.

Michale.....

Michale...

For all the trekkies out there ... a quick other random change of subject that made me smile:

Priceless!!!

Thanx for sharing...

Michale.....

I like the mountain metaphor. At first glance your graph reminded me of the kind of chart one sees when editing musical sound (don't know proper term), so I imagined the peaks as solo performances, which soared then disappeared, against a steady drone of voices below. Funny thing though, even as illustrated here, Romney's never had a solo - he's more like the ever-present annoying person in the chorus oversinging, and a wee bit pitchy.

Another thought: It looks to have been almost an arrangement....could we possibly suspect......?

http://twitpic.com/95b6ki

It may work. Romney and conservative SuperPACs certainly have the money.

It's a good strategy to go with though. Because I don't think enough money exists to get people excited about Romney :)

Anyways, the Mt. Sunflower site was nice, Chris. Hadn't seen that before.

For all the trekkies out there ... a quick other random change of subject that made me smile.

-David

[Ed. Note: Your link appeared broken (the ! in it, I think), so I tried to fix it...]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/new-rnc-obamas-same-tired-rhetoric-119649.html

Regardless of ALL partisan BS, ya'all just have to admit.

That's a pretty effective ad.... :D

Michale.....

OK, that was funny, but the all-time model for columns like this is the "Into Thick Air" website, which hilariously documents the ascent of Mount Sunflower, highest point in Kansas.

http://www.bettingers.org/air/ks000.htm

Look at the background of those photos (click on Part I and then scroll through the pages) -- "Mount" Sunflower looks exactly like you'd expect the highest point in Kansas to look (with apologies to Thomas Friedman): hot, flat, and uncrowded.

Heh.

-CW

I've posted this link on your site several times before, re. dealing with Michale's verbiage; but if you've never bothered checking it out before, here it is again:

https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~hays/humor/crawling_up_everest.html

Sorry for the redundancy, but your piece today reminded me of it yet again :-)

(For what it's worth, David liked it too).