Trayvon Martin Shooting - If Only Obama Had Intervened Sooner

Jiminy - Reuters has a long profile of George Zimmerman and we learn in the lead that he got his gun permit and gun because a neighbor wouldn't control his large, menacing pit bull:

(Reuters) - A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.

The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law's dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.

Oh, man - if only the First Dog Diner had been around in September 2009.  We can hear him now - "If I had a dog it would look like Big Boi and Big Boi would look like dinner."

The real juice in the story is a bit later, where Reuters describes the crime wave that had vexed the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Two snippets:

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

And one of the burglaries was unusually upsetting:

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

...

But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse.

On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom, and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.

"I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors.

Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police.

After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.

"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week."

I guess he didn't come off as an annoying contol freak at that moment.

This is the second recent 'new perspective' story from Reuters. Obviously, this might have been more helpful in easing our national blood pressure had it been run last March, but hey.

I will add that I read about the home invasion back when the City of Sanford had more of their police reports online. The prosecutor asked to have them taken down; they live online, but where? In the Google Cache, of course, and now also here: TwinLakesBurglaryReports; the home invasion is p. 13.

The Tampa Bay Times wrote about a neighborhood in transition battered by falling home prices and crime back on March 25. I do not think the Tampa Bay Times crime stat jibes with the Reuters numbers, but here we go:

For the first two months of this year, at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the Sanford police logged 51 calls for service. Half were just people requesting information. The others included eight burglaries, two bike thefts and three simple assaults.

UPDATE: Here is the Miami Herald from March 17, with help from DizzyMissL:

The answer may lie in police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death.

In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.

Comments

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

I responded directly to you when you demanded to know my racial heritage so you could judge my commentary, Kathy.

But you, instead of answering Danube's simple and direct question, have chosen instead to spew even more dishonest merde into the thread ("wasn't supposed to be carrying") in an effort to distract people from your duplicity and moral cowardice.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"And there will be no stopping of the abuse for the ridiculous hair color you're using."

Exactly. I'm glad somebody gets it.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"He was shot by George Zimmerman with a licensed handgun he had every right to be carrying, in a perfectly legal act of self defense."

Legally, he had a right, but ethically he did not. It was a violation of guidelines for neighborhood watch volunteers. They are not supposed to carry guns.

[Melinda Romanoff]

And those shoes, with that quanta? I suppose you're going to tell me I'm just a quark away from Higg's, but that I've made a reservation at the wrong time, because you're booked at that moment.

Typical.

[Have Blue]

George Zimmerman was not on duty as a neighborhood watch volunteer that night. He was on his way to the store (sound familiar?).

When he stopped to observe a suspicious person he felt might commit a crime he was acting as a concerned neighbor, looking out for the welfare of his community.

And he was correct about the person he was watching. That person was going to commit a crime, except the crime was not burglary as George probably suspected, but rather attempted murder.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"But you, instead of answering Danube's simple and direct question, have chosen instead to spew even more dishonest merde into the thread ("wasn't supposed to be carrying") in an effort to distract people from your duplicity and moral cowardice."

Zimmerman was not supposed to be carrying that gun. That is not "dishonest," it's the truth.

And Danube's "question" was simple only in the sense of being a simpleton's question. It made no sense and had nothing to do with Trayvon Martin's death.

I posted a link to the most comprehensive source of information on the Trayvon Martin case that you will find anywhere on the Internet, and instead of looking at it and responding to it, you insult my intelligence and reveal your lack of same by attacking me for not answering a nonsense question completely irrelevant to this shooting death.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ahah!

Allergic to clauses! I get it. Wow, I thought it was me dere fer a seckkend.

Here's the last clause you dropped, fer whatever reason. And dat comma is kynda imtortent, djya know?

", if dere on watch."

Not binary.

On.

Off.

On.

Off.

In da ker.

Outta da ker.

On.

Off.

Outta de ker.

Hoose on ferst?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Der yer ears hurt in an aeroplane alot?

Dere's a cure fer dat. Take da damn staples out!

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

Zimmerman was not supposed to be carrying that gun. That is not "dishonest," it's the truth.

No, as Have Blue already pointed out, you're once again spewing merde.

I posted a link to the most comprehensive source of information on the Trayvon Martin case that you will find anywhere on the Internet, and instead of looking at it and responding to it, you insult my intelligence and reveal your lack of same by attacking me for not answering a nonsense question completely irrelevant to this shooting death.

On the contrary, you posted a link to the far left wing Mother Jones site - about as trustworthy as a link to a Glenn Beck site would be.

Tom's blog here has been much more comprehensive, especially in its exhaustive debunking of the absolute merde you're still trying to shovel here. I can see why you'd try to misdirect people to another site, since your merde doesn't pass muster against the fact-checking here.

And Danube's "question" was simple only in the sense of being a simpleton's question. It made no sense and had nothing to do with Trayvon Martin's death.

Again, I'll point out that instead of answering Danube's simple and direct question, have chosen instead to spew even more dishonest merde into the thread ("wasn't supposed to be carrying") in an effort to distract people from your duplicity and moral cowardice.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"When he stopped to observe a suspicious person he felt might commit a crime he was acting as a concerned neighbor, looking out for the welfare of his community."

That's not the point. The point is that he should have left it at calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive, which they did within five minutes of the call. He had no right and no reason to follow and confront Martin himself, and he certainly had no right to use his handgun on an unarmed teenager to shoot him dead. His life was never in danger. He did not have to kill Trayvon Martin.

And if Zimmerman "was not acting as a neighborhood watch volunteer" that night, that's even MORE reason why he should not have and had no right to follow and confront Martin, much less use his handgun on him. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Concern and safety for the welfare of his neighbors did not entitle George Zimmerman to act with reckless disregard for the life of Trayvon Martin. And that's not even to mention the fact that Martin WAS one of Zimmerman's neighbors. He was staying with family members who lived in that community. Just because ZIMMERMAN hadn't seen him before did not give him the right to decide he didn't belong there, follow him, and kill him.

[Ignatz]

I like Kathy's hair color and her necklace.
I especially like where Kathy's necklace disappears.
She has nice eyes as well.
How does Kathy Ratzkywatzky sound? I kind of like the ring of it.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Er, no.

I think we're narrowing it down though, so this is excellent work by you to stay so engaged.

Have you had you're vision tested recently and is there a history of diabetes in your family?

This could be serious, so please answer honestly.

[Melinda Romanoff]

My hamster wheel.

Beat it.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

The point is that he should have left it at calling 911 and waiting for the police to arrive

This is a lie.

He had no right and no reason to follow and confront Martin himself

This is a lie.

he certainly had no right to use his handgun on an unarmed teenager to shoot him dead.

This is a lie.

His life was never in danger.

This is a lie.

And if Zimmerman "was not acting as a neighborhood watch volunteer" that night, that's even MORE reason why he should not have and had no right to follow and confront Martin

This is a lie.

And that's not even to mention the fact that Martin WAS one of Zimmerman's neighbors.

This is a lie.

He was staying with family members who lived in that community.

This is a lie.

That's a rather impressive amount of dishonest merde you packed into a single comment. I did warn you how stupid you were to rely on sources like Mother Jones, though. And that
your merde> wouldn't pass muster against the fact-checking at this blog.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"On the contrary, you posted a link to the far left wing Mother Jones site - about as trustworthy as a link to a Glenn Beck site would be."

That is a truly idiotic comparison. I get that you don't like Mother Jones because it's a left wing publication, but comparing it to Glenn Beck is just absurd. National Review is a far right-wing publication and I don't like or agree with its politics, but if I said to you that National Review was no more reliable than Glenn Beck, that would be just as absurd.

Also, are you saying all the links and all the primary documents the article provides are all made up and fraudulent? You've clicked on all the links and they all go to Glenn Beck? What does Mother Jones's political slant have to do with the reliability of the information the article links to? If they provide references, and if YOU'VE CHECKED THOSE REFERENCES and they come from credible sources, what difference does it make that Mother Jones is left wing?

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

Oh, and of course I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that instead of answering Danube's simple and direct question, have chosen yet again instead to spew another truckload of dishonest merde into the thread in an effort to distract people from your duplicity and moral cowardice.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"... wouldn't pass muster against the fact-checking at this blog."

FACT-CHECKING? Maybe you need to check your temperature, NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. You're delirious.

There has been NO fact-checking in these comments threads. NONE.

[Annoying Old Guy]

Mz. Kattenburg;

I looked at your link and I see no evidence there whatsoever about skittles and ice tea. The fact that the author, who has no direct knowledge, writes such a statement is zero evidence. If that's what your basis is, it's clear the skittles and iced tea are not only not "well established", they are not established at all.

One also notices that the page has the years too young picture of Martin which for a page with putative facts is basically a lie. It also claims, as fact, that neo-Nazis are patrolling Sanford, something else that has been widely debunked. It has the debunked "voice experts" as well. That's a very impeachable source you are using. Try to find one that doesn't support lies and debunked claims and get back to me.

P.S. I didn't link to the 911 calls because others have done so, over and over, along with excerpts that specifically address my claim.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

"There has been NO fact-checking in these comments threads. NONE. "

-- Kathy Kattenburg, Merde, She Wrote

[Melinda Romanoff]

Only one source for your data.

Crump.

Which sounds like "Dump".

Which rhymes with "Rump".

And means it only supplies, er, what's dat dere frenchie's werd.

Oh, yeh, scheiss.

[archie goodwin]

One would think, an editor who had worked for at least two publishers would be a diligent enough researcher, and was a good judge of discerning fact patterns, AOG, but
that isn't so, Now Lipkes in his AT suggested
that the now ubiquitous items were present, and O'Mara stipulated, however this case depends on evidence,

[Have Blue]

Following is irrelevent. As to confrontation, there is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted anyone.

Martin attempted to kill Zimmerman, Zimmerman resisted for several minutes non-lethally (although he had the means to end the fight instantly) while shouting and pleading for help from those who were listening.

Finally after having exhausted his options he took the only remaing action he had open to him.

The fact that he did not take that action sooner proves the falsity of the states "depraved mind" Murder 2 charge.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Have Blue-

In KK's eyes, possession of a gun is guilt enough, so stop.

Talking to a dispatcher is enough reason to not have a gun.

As imagined, not evacuating a questionable actor's space is reason enough to not have a gun.

As imagined, not following the non-mandatory instructions of a dispatcher are guilt, unto and of themselves, and why argue about any of this, thank you. I mean SHeesh.

Oh, yes, Imagined.

Like the Higg's boson, to date.

Does. Not. Exist.

[Annoying Old Guy]

archie goodwin;

It's quite possible that the skittles and ice tea were present. I simply have not seen any clear evidence either way, but multiple weak indicators in both directions. I think it clear their existence, while plausible, is not "well established". And certainly not well established by the typing of some Mother Jones writer.

If I were O'Mara I would stipulate them because they are legally irrelevant and therefore worth no time or effort from him.

[Have Blue]

Kathy seems to have disappeared.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

No, I'm here. Something really weird happened earlier. This final page of comments disappeared from my cached copy of the post, and even when I reloaded, it wasn't there. I even posted two comments, one saying that all the subsequent comments after the page before this one had disappeared -- that the page wasn't there anymore. And I posted the second comment, saying basically, this is fucking weird, after I reloaded, and THAT comment about the disappearing page wasn't there! Then I reloaded to see that second comment, and IT wasn't there, either!

I then cleared my entire history, which should not have been the explanation, because reloading should have given me an updated page. Then I went away for a while and tried again, and lo and behold, the last page of comments is here.

I don't understand it, and frankly it's kind of spooky. I'm thinking maybe it's a ripple effect from the Stephen King book I'm currently reading (the new one, 11/22/63).

[That's her opinion.]

The Typepad Goddess is pissed that your 'facts' are not 'reality-based'.
=================

[Ben Franklin]

Kathy;

My mom backed the truck into my bicycle so now my schedule is a bit of a mess - I will have to walk to the comic book store.

Serves me right for hiding the old nag's glasses...

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Ben,

It's not Tom. He's not deleting. I'm sure of that. It was some weird computer thing, or maybe Typepad, and while it was going on, it was really weirding me out. Because I *knew* I had posted other comments and there had been replies to them after that next to last page.

[Choose wisely, only your karma knows for sure.]

It's your Karma for buying into a false narrative, Kathy. Now about your choice of neighbors, George, or Trayvon.
====================

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Maguire doesn't play nice"

BINGO!

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"It's your Karma for buying into a false narrative, Kathy. Now about your choice of neighbors, George, or Trayvon."

Trayvon is dead.

[Was Dana once your Perfessor?]

Heh, an answer even stupider than the question. You're a gem, Kathy.
===========

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Heh, an answer even stupider than the question."

What? You mean he's not dead?

And I can't say whether you're a gem, or what you are, since you like most people here, prefer to hide behind throwaway lines in place of any name.

[GMax]

Mierda, different language same stuff KK is spewing.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Gmax-

Have you ever seen a hamster wheel spin like Kathy's? I had no idea the pivot points could move around like that without someone hurting themselves.

[Ben Franklin]

That is four, count 'em four dumps! People tell me Ex-Lax doesn't work, but I say, double the dose!

[Kathy Kattenburg]

You know the interesting, though, GMax? I keep getting this same content-free reply from almost everyone here: "KK is spewing merde," "It's scheiss," "Different language, same mierda," "Same old shit," "That's a lie!" "That answer is stupider than the question," "It's your karma for buying into a false narrative," "KK is a coward," and the context of that last one, here's the best one: "Maguire doesn't place nice. BINGO!" on which the anonymous commenter has typed in my name in place of the usual throwaway line.

Obviously, and first of all, these responses are all, as I said content-free, and just as obviously are meant to substitute for "I don't have anything intelligent or relevant to say, but I want the last word, so I'll just post a generic insult and leave it at that."

But second, and actually more important than this general substance-free generic insult, is the cowardice of a person who would post a comment under my name. Everyone knows of course that it's not Kathy Kattenburg, so it's not even a serious attempt at impersonation. It's just the pathetic act of a craven little mouse who has nothing to say and is afraid even to express that nothing blankness, so chooses to hide behind someone else's name.

And see, no matter how cowardly or false you think MY views are, what that individual did is something I would NEVER do. Not because I'm superior as a person, but only because I have more pride than that person has -- more self-respect. Which in this case is to say, I have a minimum level, a modicum, of pride and self-respect. I have actually a higher level than that, but all I would need to have is a trace of respect for myself to say that I would never do something like that, that I would never hide my own opinion -- or lack of opinion, more accurately -- behind someone else's identity.

So congratulations to whoever that little bunny rabbit is who typed my name on his or her comment -- you are the finest, most shining little chicken heart anyone could ever hope to be.

[boris]

"pathetic act of a craven little mouse who has nothing to say"

Mocking self righteous sanctimony is American as apple pie. You don't have to comment here and/or you don't have to be so hostile. As you do both the crybaby act gets you no sympathy.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

Kathy, people here have been pointing out your ignorance and outright lies since you started commenting here on the Zimmerman case.

Kathy, people here have used the Socratic method to demonstrate the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your various claims and insinuations.

Kathy, people here have pointed out your cowardice in refusing to own up to the lies that you've tried to spread, and your cowardice in refusing to answer direct questions put to you (even though everyone else here has answered your direct questions).

Kathy, people here didn't cower in fear and beg your forgiveness when you called them assholes; racists; holocaust deniers; neo-nazis; actual Nazis; fascists; or murderers.

So you're even dumber than you previously appeared to be (quite a feat!) if you think anyone here is going to be cowed by your tedious martyrdom rant about how brave, proud, and self-respectful little you is being mistreated because your little friend and ally Ben Franklin sock-puppeted a comment by you.

[narciso]

I concede it may be true, that's why I cite the Lipkes piece, for independent confirmation. What never made a great deal of sense, was using this tragic incident, as an object lesson in the notion, that the no 1, threat to young black men, are white people,
that the police whether in NY, LA or Miami,
instead of trying to do an impossible job with some modicum of skill and determination
are always wrong. that's Bell, Sharpton,Obama

[GMax]

KK anyone who would proudly point to Mother Jones as a source of anything other than nonsense, is a caricature and a clown. Most posters have realized how steeped in the kool aide you are, and are toying with you. Well that and mocking while laughing up their sleeve. Keep posting, it really is amusing watching get slapped around...

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"people here have used the Socratic method"

You have not used the Socratic method. Stupid questions are not the Socratic method.

"people here have pointed out your cowardice in refusing to own up to the lies that you've tried to spread"

I did not tell any lies here. I have not accused anyone here of lying. Ignorance, racism, yes. But not lying. You believe what you're saying. I don't expect you to "admit" that you're "lying" when I know you're not lying, just believing what you want to believe, regardless of objective facts. Don't expect me to "admit" that I'm "lying" when I am not lying. Just because you are absolutely convinced that you are right and I am wrong does not mean I am lying. And just because you refuse to take seriously or even look at any sources of information that do not reflect your preconceived, cast in cement views, does not mean I haven't provided that support.

"people here didn't cower in fear and beg your forgiveness when you called them assholes; racists; holocaust deniers; neo-nazis; actual Nazis; fascists; or murderers."

Yes, and I did all that UNDER MY OWN NAME.

Which is another way of saying that I have not "begged your forgiveness" or "cowered in fear" at anything that has been said here -- very much including the sniveling mouse who posted a comment under my name. I have told you, in various ways, that you don't know what you're talking about, don't want to know, and just simply will not accept the validity of any information or evidence that does not fit your racist, prejudiced, preconceived narrative about what happened to Trayvon Martin.

The latest and most astounding example of that being someone here (I think it was Have Blue but I wouldn't swear to that) actually telling me that IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED that Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot. I mean, someone actually BELIEVES this. Next, I'm expecting to be told that Martin was not unarmed, that he had a gun, that it hasn't been established that he was unarmed.

This is not "the Socratic method" or asking direct questions -- it's terminal refusal to adjust your views to facts. It's an inability to even understand what a fact is -- to understand what's fact and what's opinion, what's credible or possible given what is known and not known.

Just in case I haven't made myself clear yet, I'll say it again: You are historically ignorant, racist, dishonest, disingenuous, hypocritical, misinformed, and uninformed. You use words and concepts you don't understand (like the "Socratic method"), think like someone who lives in an echo chamber, and refuse to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.

But even all this I could accept as part of the passion and fierceness of political debate. What I can't accept is people who post comments under someone else's name, or people who condone that kind of behavior as just another part of the silliness of online communication.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

The latest and most astounding example of that being someone here (I think it was Have Blue but I wouldn't swear to that) actually telling me that IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED that Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot.

Was Trayvon talking to DeeDee via the bag of skittles, or the can of tea?

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

And I'll take the opportunity to again point out your cowardice and duplicity in not answering Danube's questions.

Predictably, all you did was dump another enormous load of dishonest merde into the thread.

[boris]

What I can't accept is people who post comments under someone else's name ...

Then don't accept it. Nobody's forcing you to comment here.

[narciso]

There are many things that Robles and Alvarez,
have put forward have not turned out to be true, and we've kept a record, unfortunately
it's like drilling down to the Alien pyramid
in A v P. Burnside has been reprimanded for one instance, bur clearly this has been a pattern of behavior.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Was Trayvon talking to DeeDee via the bag of skittles, or the can of tea?"

Is this another example of your use of the Socratic method?

"And I'll take the opportunity to again point out your cowardice and duplicity in not answering Danube's questions."

Danube asked me to tell him if I think Barack Obama is an African American. That is a stupid question. That is a pointless question. That is the kind of question asked by someone who wants to play games, not get useful information.

And I don't answer questions like that in the context of what should be a serious discussion.

And your continued insistence that refusing to answer a stupid, pointless question is "dishonest" and "duplicitous" is also stupid.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Nobody's forcing you to comment here."

Of course nobody's forcing me to comment here. Nobody's forcing you to read my comments or respond to them, either.

Eh?

[Annoying Old Guy]

Ms. Kattenburg;

The latest and most astounding example of that being someone here (I think it was Have Blue but I wouldn't swear to that) actually telling me that IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED that Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot.

That was me and I am still waiting any evidence you have for your claim on the matter. An off hand comment on a web page with numerous other factual errors doesn't count.

I think it is an excellent example of the Socratic method to ask whether Martin was talking to Dee on the skittles or the iced tea. The point is to get you to think about what you have claimed. That it fails to cause thinking in you is not the fault of the method. But perhaps I can be a little clearer -- what object would Martin have used to talk to Dee Dee? Is that object in what you claim is the exhaustive list of what Martin possessed when he was shot? The list being, according to you, "skittles, iced tea"?

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

Is this another example of your use of the Socratic method?

It's another example of your lies. The way you present a slanted, incomplete version of facts and events as if they were true and accurate. (Which is unsurprising, since you're relying on a source like Mother Jones for all your information.)

At this point, everyone realizes that your only purpose here is to slander other commenters and repeat debunked merde to try to salvage the original narrative.

No one expects you to participate in the conversation as an honest broker.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

(And for now it's still amusing to continue to point out your cowardice and duplicity in not answering Danube's questions, and that all you seem capable of doing is dumping load after load of dishonest merde into the thread.)

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"I think it is an excellent example of the Socratic method to ask whether Martin was talking to Dee on the skittles or the iced tea."

It is? If you can tell me what it means to talk to someone on a bag of Skittles or a can of tea, I'll consider answering. Otherwise, I will continue to stick with my belief that a bag of Skittles is not a phone and a can of tea is not a phone and so one person cannot talk to another on a Skittles or a can of tea.

"That was me and I am still waiting any evidence you have for your claim on the matter. An off hand comment on a web page with numerous other factual errors doesn't count."

It was in the police report, you fool. The 7-11 store where TM bought the skittles and tea confirmed the sale. The fact that Martin was carrying only skittles and tea when he was shot has been included in every single news publication that has ever written about this case, not just Mother Jones.

You are a goddamn fucking FOOL.

[boris]

"Martin was carrying only skittles and tea ..."

Was he talking to DeeDee on his "skittle phone" or his "Ice-T phone"? (idiot)

[And stamps her widdle foot.]

Heh, Kathy 'can't accept'.
=============

[Whoah, hard choice there.]

Would you rather have a cup of tea or a bag of skittles for a neighbor?
====================

[U-Haul, Me Haul, We all haul our narratives all.]

Verizon to the right of me, T-Mobile on the left. Here I am, stuck in the middle with Kathy.
===================

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Was he talking to DeeDee on his "skittle phone" or his "Ice-T phone"? (idiot)"

Now you're calling me an idiot for quoting YOUR question?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Would you rather have a cup of tea or a bag of skittles for a neighbor?"

Would you rather have a zebra or a giraffe for a father?

[Calling in vain for neighbors to help.]

Kathy went down to the local convenience store and bought a cheap false narrative. On the way home she was stalked by some inconvenient facts and exploded in racist anger. Now there she lies, spent, on the ground, felled by a gale of laughter.
==============

[hit and run]

It was in the police report, you fool.

In this police report?

[Yo Mama don't care.]

Would you rather have Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman for a father?
==========

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Kathy went down to the local convenience store and bought a cheap false narrative. On the way home she was stalked by some inconvenient facts and exploded in racist anger. Now there she lies, spent, on the ground, felled by a gale of laughter."

That's actually funny. Well-written, too. Too bad whoever you are, you're not willing to take credit for your own work.

Too shy or modest, I guess, huh?

[My Muse, or m'amuse.]

The credit is all yours. I said you were a gem.
==============

[GMax]

We are all mocking you Chatty Katty. Why dont you get a handle. Here let me help you. Katlitter. Perfect!

[Why do those lumps all look like clown noses?]

I'm sorry to report that my dog chewed up the scooper. Now I've gotta borrow one from my neighbor. Who's got one, Trayvon on the left, or George on the right.
=================

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

Otherwise, I will continue to stick with my belief that a bag of Skittles is not a phone and a can of tea is not a phone and so one person cannot talk to another on a Skittles or a can of tea.

At this point Socrates might ask, "So how did Trayvon manage to talk to DeeDee if, as you contend, Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot?"

In response, Kathy would then spout another load of irrelevant merde before accusing Socrates of being an ignorant holocaust-denying racist.

[NO_LIMIT_NIGGA]

It was in the police report, you fool.

I realize that you consider asking for proof of any of your various bullshit claims about the Zimmerman case to be a sign of holocaust denialism, Kathy, but I'll ask anyway:

Please provide a link to or other proof of the existence of this police report which you assert confirms your earlier assertion that Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot.

[Annoying Old Guy]

You know the interesting thing, though, NO_LIMIT? I keep getting this same content-free reply from almost every Kattenburg post: "you fool", "You are a goddamn fucking FOOL"

Obviously, and first of all, these responses are all, as I said content-free, and just as obviously are meant to substitute for "I don't have anything intelligent or relevant to say, but I want the last word, so I'll just post a generic insult and leave it at that."

Self awareness - it's not for the proglodyte mind.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Hit and Run,

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. The Skittles and tea detail was not in the initial police report.

It was in the prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause:
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/335987-state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit

It wss mentioned in this CBS News timeline, although they don't give the source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57412417-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-a-timeline-of-events/

It was mentioned in this CNN timeline:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-timeline/

Beyond this, I am still looking for other primary documents (in addition to the affidavit) for where the info about Skittles and tea came from. All the news stories I've looked at (CBS and CNN are only two of many I've looked at) report that Trayvon Martin was walking home from a nearby 7-11 convenience store where he bought skittles and tea, and that he was on the phone with his girlfriend on his walk home. It's possible he told her that he was coming back from the store, and she mentioned it to the police when they questioned her. I also have to assume that either the police or the prosecutor's office contacted that 7-11 to confirm the sale. I mean, that would be standard procedure in an investigation like this.

I still don't think there's any sensible reason to suggest that the Skittles and tea detail is false. I mean, ultimately, the important point is that Martin was unarmed. The Skittles and tea is a detail that creates more sympathy for him, but I don't think it follows from that that it must be untrue.

Anyway, I'm sorry I did not check the police report first before saying it was there, and I do believe in acknowledging mistakes when I make them.

[For heaven's sake - it is obviously incomplete unless he was talking to his girlfriend on either the Skittles or the iced tea. Unlikely, even with Web 2.0.

FWIW, Bill Jacobson tried to source this a few weeks back. He traced it to an interview give by Police Chief Lee.]

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"At this point Socrates might ask, "So how did Trayvon manage to talk to DeeDee if, as you contend, Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot?"

I do not understand what this question means. All snark aside, I'm serious. What is your point here that you want me to respond to? If you truly want me to answer a question, then I have to believe you want the question to be clear. If it isn't clear, I cannot answer it. Perhaps you will take that to heart and ask your questions in a serious fashion in such a way that they convey meaning and not just sarcasm.

I'm waiting....

[Clarice]

We have no official word as to what he was carrying, but as the government intends to rely on his telephone conversation with "DeeDee" it's safe to assume he had a cell phone on him.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Then there's that Pacific Time thingie.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"We have no official word as to what he was carrying, but as the government intends to rely on his telephone conversation with "DeeDee" it's safe to assume he had a cell phone on him."

Of course he had a cell phone on him. Who said otherwise?

[narciso]

OT, reading through that oddly topical Erdman
potboiler,'the Crash of '79' that involves an
Iranian bomb, and a confrontation with Saudi
Arabia, one he still had a chip on his shoulder about Friedman, two, he describes a world in 1976, which was vainly doing many of the things, short term tax rebates, deficit
spending, that are familiar to the current day.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Then there's that Pacific Time thingie."

Hi, Melinda Romanoff! Are you one of the famous Romanoffs? Or are you a Romanov with an ancestor that changed the family name?

Who are you, girlfriend?

[Melinda Romanoff]

You just said "The fact that Martin was carrying only skittles and tea...." sorta points the finger at yerself.

And is why yer gettin' mocked.

Justified.

[Melinda Romanoff]

My real first name is Quod.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Heh.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Almost know you're history, don't you.

But still almost.

Were you always this much an arguer versus a researcher?

Do.

The.

Work.

[Annoying Old Guy]

I still don't think there's any sensible reason to suggest that the Skittles and tea detail is false.

Who has done that? You'd find responses to you more intelligible if you read them for content.

[Tom Maguire]

Who are you, girlfriend?

She is someone who has been commenting here for quite some time and is widely respected.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Oops.

you're s/b your.

Sorry.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Oh. man.

There goes my "cloud of confusion" stance.

T.M., I'll e-mail you later. The one you see's not so, ahem, clear, shall we say. I'se got some 'splainin' to do, but in the AM.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"You just said "The fact that Martin was carrying only skittles and tea...." sorta points the finger at yerself."

Oh, I see. I am so sorry that I confused you. When I've said, here, that TM was unarmed, that all he had was Skittles and tea, I didn't realize that you would take that to mean I was saying he didn't have any item on his person at all. Of course he had a cell phone, and in fact I've mentioned that as one of the confirmed details many times in these threads.

I really am so sorry I was unclear. I didn't realize you would take me so literally.

I hope I've cleared up everyone's confusion now. Have I? Is everyone all right now?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Precision makes all the difference here. No my confusion by me, in the least. When Crump's "facts" have been steadily and relentlessly chased down and proved wanting, a new story emerges.

That has been done here, among other places, but here has been really thorough.

You're wading in with a rehash of two month old media memes after we've discussed every publicly available fact set and timeline possibility is like the little 11 year old sister storming into the parent's bedroom, on a Saturday night at 2 AM demanding to be taken seriously by an older sister.

Wrong time, wrong place, and wrong people.

Do.

The.

Work.

After that, we'll take you seriously.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Who has done that? You'd find responses to you more intelligible if you read them for content."

Well, I thought you did, Annoying Old Guy, but I'm very happy to hear that I was wrong.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"She is someone who has been commenting here for quite some time and is widely respected."

And I can certainly see why.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Precision makes all the difference here."

Absolutely! And if I ever confuse you again, I hope you will feel free to ask for a clarification right away.

"When Crump's "facts" have been steadily and relentlessly chased down and proved wanting, a new story emerges."

Oh! I didn't realize Crump was claiming Trayvon Martin didn't have a cell phone.

"You're wading in with a rehash of two month old media memes after we've discussed every publicly available fact set and timeline possibility is like the little 11 year old sister storming into the parent's bedroom, on a Saturday night at 2 AM demanding to be taken seriously by an older sister."

Yeah, or like that old song line, "All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth." It's a cute song, but you gotta remember to be precise when singing it to your friends, because they might not get you any presents!

"Do.

The.

Work.

After that, we'll take you seriously."

Melinda, you're delightful to talk to. I will do everything in my power to Do
The
Work
and earn the right to be taken seriously here. :-)

[And I got my answer even if you didn't tell me.]

Kathy, it struck me that maybe you truly don't realize that you are laboring under a false narrative. My 'stupid' question was designed to figure out whether you believed that narrative or not.
==============================

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Almost know you're history, don't you."

Almost know your contractions, don't you?

Ha! Sorry! Couldn't resist! :-)

"Were you always this much an arguer versus a researcher?"

Have you always been this perceptive, Melinda?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Kathy, it struck me that maybe you truly don't realize that you are laboring under a false narrative. My 'stupid' question was designed to figure out whether you believed that narrative or not.
AndIGotMyAnswerEvenIfYouDidn't Tell Me"

I did, too. And I don't even know who you are!

[I give up. This is child abuse.]

Nobody's ever mocked you before for arguing a narrative you've inadequately researched?
================

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Nobody's ever mocked you before for arguing a narrative you've inadequately researched?"

LOL!

Who are you? Maybe Tom will tell me. :-)

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Nobody's ever mocked you before for arguing a narrative you've inadequately researched?"

Actually, sorry, that question deserved a more serious answer.

I can't say anyone has ever *mocked* me before for pretty much anything, really, since my grade school days (okay, I was mocked a few times in high school, too).

I *have* at times been told I was wrong about some point or other and it turns out I was.

I have to say, though, that if someone wanted to mock me for arguing a narrative I'd inadequately researched, I would much prefer that such mocking come from people who themselves don't know how to adequately research a narrative before arguing it, than have it come from people who DO know how to adequately research a narrative before arguing it.

I hope that answers your question.

[Have Blue]

Of course he had a cell phone on him. Who said otherwise?

Posted by: Kathy Kattenburg | April 29, 2012 at 12:09 AM

YOU DID. You have wasted an entire page of comments here claiming that TM was carrying "nothing but Skittles and iced tea" in contravention of logic and common sense.

You have not tried to explain how possessing candy and iced tea precludes Trayvon Martin from committing a felonious assault on an innocent man that led to his homicide at the hands of the victim he tried to murder.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"YOU DID. You have wasted an entire page of comments here claiming that TM was carrying "nothing but Skittles and iced tea" in contravention of logic and common sense."

No, Have Blue. I didn't. I have referred to Martin's cell phone many, many times in other threads if not in this one. Not to mention that a cell phone is not a weapon, and when someone says, "He was carrying nothing but Skittles and tea," it should be obvious to anyone who can discern meaning from context that the words "nothing but" when the argument is about who was responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin implies that there was NO WEAPON OTHER THAN Skittles and tea, and that that is an ironic way of conveying the meaning that Skittles and tea are not weapons.

Over and over again, anyone who has not been living under a rock and knows the details of this case has heard the declaration, "George Zimmerman had a gun. Trayvon Martin had nothing but Skittles and tea." To read or hear "Trayvon Martin had nothing but Skittles and tea," and NOT understand that the meaning of that sentence is in contrast to the sentence "George Zimmerman had a gun," when *that's what we're talking about* -- whether George Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense when Martin had no weapon -- is to be lacking in the most basic reading comprehension skills, OR to be arguing in bad faith, accusing the other person of ridiculous things in order to score points because you have no other serious argument.

I really do not believe that ANYONE here truly thought, when I said that Trayvon Martin had nothing but Skittles and tea, that I meant he didn't have a cell phone. I absolutely without doubt am certain that everyone here knew that the "nothing else" meant "no weapon" and not "no cell phone." Because I actually don't think anyone here -- *anyone* -- is that functionally illiterate as to not be able to understand obvious implied meaning. Every adult who has graduated from high school should be able to understand what implied meaning is, and recognize it from the context in speech or writing.

And let me add that I *especially* don't believe, for one minute, for one second, that Tom Maguire didn't/doesn't understand that I was referring to not having a weapon and not to not having a cell phone when I said "nothing but Skittles and tea." I say that because Tom Maguire, although I disagree with him on Trayvon Martin, and on most topics he writes about, is an excellent writer. A thoughtful, careful, well-spoken writer. He understands what words mean. He understands that meaning in language is contextual and implied, not just literal. I say this, not to flatter Tom, but because, life being short and time being precious, I have no time to spare reading bloggers who are blithering idiots and/or who don't know how to put a sentence together. I don't, and wouldn't, for example, spend one minute reading Pam Geller's blog or commenting on anything she wrote. Because she can't write, she can't think, and she's got the brains of a toad. Tom *can* write, *can* think, and is obviously an intelligent person, and so his posts are worth reading even when I disagree with them (which, I said, is pretty much always).

That's why I have no patience for Tom's, or anyone's, suggesting that someone is an intelligent person deserving of respect by all, when that someone, regardless of whether they actually are intelligent, is *behaving* as if they were a dummy, pretending not to understand what is perfectly clear to any sixth grade student.

I respect Tom's writing ability even though I disagree with his political views because when I read his writing it's obvious that he knows how to write. I respect a person's written comments on a blog because, although they may disagree with another person, it's clear from their responses that they understand obvious meaning and are interested in substantively responding with their own ideas as opposed to pretending that the other person said or meant something they clearly did not.

I am 100% certain that when I wrote, for example, "And I can certainly see why," about a certain person being widely respected, Tom Maguire knew exactly what I meant and what I didn't mean. I am 100% certain that he was capable of reading that sentence, and that he did read that sentence, and understood the meaning that was implied from larger context (including everything that I had previously written here and what he knows of my opinions), and that he did not think that my meaning in writing that sentence was actually the literal meaning that the literal words would have seemed to convey. And I'm certain everyone else had this capability, too.

And, knowing that, I also know that nobody here -- least of all Tom Maguire -- honestly thought that the sentence "Trayvon Martin had nothing but Skittles and tea" meant that I was denying he had a cell phone. Because if you can understand meaning in context in one place, you can understand it in other places, too.

[Ignatz]

Kathy,
No offense, but were you a better writer you could have said all that in about two or three sentences.

BTW if Melinda is your new girlfriend where does that leave me?
Writing letters to Ann Landers signed 'lovelorn on the intertubes'?

[boris]

"that there was NO WEAPON OTHER THAN Skittles and tea, and that that is an ironic way of conveying the meaning ..."

Only if by "ironic" you really mean "moronic".

Not exactly the hallmark of a "serious discussion" is it.

[Strawman Cometh]

So KK, if he had a cell phone, why didn't Trayvon call 911 when he saw he was being stalked by the hulking white Hispanic?

I have another question about why GZ would call the cops before he set out to shoot the innocent child, but one at a time.