What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[Charles Kozierok]

The first lines in the 911 call transcript indicate that Zimmerman decided Martin was up to no good well before any of what you described:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

All he had to go on at the start was that Martin was "walking around, looking about". From this he decided that Martin was "suspicious".

You can feel free to believe that he decided that he was "suspicious" based solely on his behavior. I believe that if the person had been a white male in his 40s, Zimmerman would never have even called 911.

As for the perfect opportunity to confront, doing so with 911 on the line would not have necessarily been the wisest move.

Finally, while you're correct to point out that the "assholes" comment came after a number of other events, once that comment was made it's hard to argue that at least from that point onward, his disposition towards Martin was hostile. And at that point, Martin had done nothing wrong.

 

[OCNewbie]

I'm on my phone. Will reply more around 9:15 EST, after I get home.

 

[OCNewbie]

I'd like to start out with a clarification, because I feel it's an important distinction: GZ did not call "911", as in "there's a crime in progress, this is an emergency". He called the Sanford PD's direct, non-emergency number (referred to as the "NEN"). This was something he, and other residents in that community were instructed to do, by the Sanford PD, when they noticed anything/anyone they felt was suspicious.

The first lines in the 911 call transcript indicate that Zimmerman decided Martin was up to no good well before any of what you described

And I made note of that in my previous post:

whom he already believed may be "up to no good"

My post was a direct response to your insinuation that GZ called TM an asshole "based solely on his appearance". I think I demonstrated a number of actions TM took, well beyond his appearance, that could have made GZ feel that way.

All he had to go on at the start was that Martin was "walking around, looking about". From this he decided that Martin was "suspicious".

Actually, it was also because GZ had never seen this person before (which apparently was a significant detail to GZ); this person was just casually walking in the rain, as if he didn't have a specific destination he was in a hurry to get to (like a home in the community he belonged to). GZ also stated (in interviews with investigators) that TM "just looked out of place, from what they've taught us in the neighborhood watch".

You can feel free to believe that he decided that he was "suspicious" based solely on his behavior. I believe that if the person had been a white male in his 40s, Zimmerman would never have even called 911.

How many white males in their 40's were reportedly involved in the recent burglaries and thefts in that community? - Zero. How many of the actual perpetrators (not just "suspicious guys") of the recent burglaries were young, black males? - All of them.

Here's a quote from a reuters article (Text - Video) about this:

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

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."

So, given the above, I am inclined to agree with you. Also, I never implied that GZ's suspicions were based "solely" on this person's behavior. This is what I said: "GZ initially called the NEN in large part because of this unknown person's behavior."

As for the perfect opportunity to confront, doing so with 911 on the line would not have necessarily been the wisest move.

Finally, while you're correct to point out that the "assholes" comment came after a number of other events, once that comment was made it's hard to argue that at least from that point onward, his disposition towards Martin was hostile. And at that point, Martin had done nothing wrong.

I considered that. Though, there would have been nothing illegal about him doing so.

Sure, I'll concede that GZ didn't appear to have fond feelings for this person he likely believed may have been involved in the recent burglaries in the area. Still though, with this "hostile" attitude he had towards this unknown individual, GZ remained in his car, and didn't leave his car until this person fled. Here is the last thing the dispatcher said to GZ which actually seems to trigger GZ to get out of his vehicle - "He's running? Which way is he running?", it's immediately after those words where you can hear GZ shift his vehicle into park, and then hear the chime indicating he had just opened his vehicle door. The suspect was running into an area GZ was unable to access while still in his vehicle. GZ would have been unable to tell the dispatcher where this person actually went if he remained in his car (it was between a row of houses, concealed from the street).

Here, if you have time, listen to GZ's own words as he explains what he intended on doing when he left his car. The pertinent segment is only about a minute long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cEqhj5dBY&t=39m55s

 

[EagleKeeper]

Really? There's no malice in calling someone an "asshole"? Based solely on his appearance?

Actions and profile matched up with previous problems.

Lumped both together out of frustration.

Do you ever cuss out a driver that cuts you off or turns with signalling; causing you to have to react outside your normal pattern?

 

[Geosurface]

All he had to go on at the start was that Martin was "walking around, looking about". From this he decided that Martin was "suspicious".

I guess one of the things this comes down to is whether you're someone who, like myself, believes that a person can look suspicious just by how they carry themselves... or a combination of that, plus attire, plus the circumstances, etc. That seems to be what Zimmerman was saying.

I just want to quote something from the Miami Herald article that talked about an incident at Trayvon's school where he'd gotten in trouble, just because this one particular line really ties into this:

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.”

Just wanted to point this out as evidence that Zimmerman might not have been completely crazy to think Trayvon looked/acted suspicious, and wasn't the first person to think so.

So, I'm just curious (and this is a question to you as well as anyone else with similar misgivings about Zimmerman's actions) do you think it's possible for someone to look suspicious even if you haven't seen them doing anything blatantly obvious, or illegal?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, I'm just curious (and this is a question to you as well as anyone else with similar misgivings about Zimmerman's actions) do you think it's possible for someone to look suspicious even if you haven't seen them doing anything blatantly obvious, or illegal?

Trying walking into a bank, taking pictures and measuring distances from the door to the counters.

Not doing anything wrong but see what happens....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'd like to start out with a clarification, because I feel it's an important distinction: GZ did not call "911", as in "there's a crime in progress, this is an emergency". He called the Sanford PD's direct, non-emergency number (referred to as the "NEN").

Okay.

My post was a direct response to your insinuation that GZ called TM an asshole "based solely on his appearance". I think I demonstrated a number of actions TM took, well beyond his appearance, that could have made GZ feel that way.

Anything's possible. But "suspiciousness" is subjective. It's a combination of the actor's actions and the observer's preconceptions.

How many white males in their 40's were reportedly involved in the recent burglaries and thefts in that community? - Zero. How many of the actual perpetrators (not just "suspicious guys") of the recent burglaries were young, black males? - All of them.

So, given the above, I am inclined to agree with you. Also, I never implied that GZ's suspicions were based "solely" on this person's behavior. This is what I said: "GZ initially called the NEN in large part because of this unknown person's behavior."

That seems reasonable. To what degree Zimmerman actually found Martin's behavior suspicious as opposed to his appearance, only he knows. (Actually, he may not even know. We are often not aware of our biases.)

I think that a big part of this was essentially racial stereotyping. If a young black male is doing X it is seen automatically as more "suspicious" by people like Zimmerman.

I considered that. Though, there would have been nothing illegal about him doing so.

We're not talking legality here, rather discussing disposition.

Sure, I'll concede that GZ didn't appear to have fond feelings for this person he likely believed may have been involved in the recent burglaries in the area.

He had no basis for believing that, IMO.

So, I'm just curious (and this is a question to you as well as anyone else with similar misgivings about Zimmerman's actions) do you think it's possible for someone to look suspicious even if you haven't seen them doing anything blatantly obvious, or illegal?

As I said above, I think it's a combination of actor and observer. I feel very confident that if it had been a 50-year-old white woman doing exactly what Trayvon Martin was doing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Trying walking into a bank, taking pictures and measuring distances from the door to the counters.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that Martin was "casing" anything, this analogy is wholly irrelevant.

ETA: OCNewbie, I watched part of that video, but really, that was after the incident, he knew he was in potentially deep doodoo, and so I'm not really sure what that is worth other than being his side of the story, which we already know.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Okay.

Trying walking into a bank, taking pictures and measuring distances from the door to the counters.

Not doing anything wrong but see what happens....

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that Martin was "casing" anything, this analogy is wholly irrelevant.

Where did I use the word casing within my post?

Why are you making an assumption that I am preparing to rob the bank?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Where did I use the word casing within my post?

Why are you making an assumption that I am preparing to rob the bank?

Okay, was Martin "taking pictures and measuring distances"? If not, what's the point in bringing that up?

 

[Whiskey16]

So, I'm just curious (and this is a question to you as well as anyone else with similar misgivings about Zimmerman's actions) do you think it's possible for someone to look suspicious even if you haven't seen them doing anything blatantly obvious, or illegal?

Most certainly prejudice and bigotry can come into play and greatly influence one's judgement and actions.

Here is a presentation of a relevant example:

Originally Posted by Geosurface
A year ago I was a devoted racial egalitarian and liberal. I then got my "nose under the tent" of information like this, and simply by virtue of not successfully burying my head in the sand, and accepting the truth of these studies, and their obvious connection to observed crime rates, social problems, etc... I am now, according to many, a "racist"
..
But if some groups produce certain problematic types of people at a far higher rate than other groups do, or other types of very desirable (for civilization) people at a much lower rate...

It is unequivocal that prejudicial bias and limited, but anecdotal experiences do drive people to act and make decisions that more rationally aware people would check themselves against acting out in a similar way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Where did I use the word casing within my post?

Why are you making an assumption that I am preparing to rob the bank?

Okay, was Martin "taking pictures and measuring distances"? If not, what's the point in bringing that up?

The point is you are making an assumption that my scenario was casing the bank.

My person was there for a remodeling job.

You assumed the worst; yet seem to feel that the same standard should not apply in Zimmerman - he should have "known" better.

Martin's actions led Zimmerman to make an assumptions and profile; based on experiences previously.
You did the same; without evaluating the whole picture or alternate scenarios.

Granted I did not provide you with the reason that the person was in the bank; yet Martin did not provide Zimmerman with his reasons for his actions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The point is you are making an assumption that my scenario was casing the bank.

My person was there for a remodeling job.

You assumed the worst; yet seem to feel that the same standard should not apply in Zimmerman - he should have "known" better.

It was not an assumption. It was a logical inference given that you had reply-quoted someone discussing suspicious behavior, which has been the topic of most of this thread.

Also, you originally said: "Trying walking into a bank, taking pictures and measuring distances from the door to the counters."

That doesn't describe someone there for a remodeling job, who would be expected to be there by the bank, and therefore whose measuring and photographing would not raise suspicion in the first place.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Finally, while you're correct to point out that the "assholes" comment came after a number of other events, once that comment was made it's hard to argue that at least from that point onward, his disposition towards Martin was hostile. And at that point, Martin had done nothing wrong.

I don't see how that automatically indicates "hostility". Why not frustration?

Fern

 

[OCNewbie]

Anything's possible. But "suspiciousness" is subjective. It's a combination of the actor's actions and the observer's preconceptions.

I don't see how the above reinforces your original assertion that GZ called TM an asshole "based solely on his appearance".

I think that a big part of this was essentially racial stereotyping.

I imagine that could have played A factor, but I think such comments attempt to dismiss any of TM's behavior that GZ observed.

If a young black male is doing X it is seen automatically as more "suspicious" by people like Zimmerman.

What do you mean by the underlined?

We're not talking legality here, rather discussing disposition.

Ok, I'm a little confused then. You first said this:

As for the perfect opportunity to confront, doing so with 911 on the line would not have necessarily been the wisest move.

To which I replied:

I considered that. Though, there would have been nothing illegal about him doing so.

So, clarify for me then why having "911" on the line would have made GZ initiating a confrontation not "the wisest move"? Is it your inclination to believe that because "911" was on the line, that was the only reason GZ didn't confront TM in that opportune moment?

If you believe that GZ exited his vehicle with confrontation on his mind, why did he remain on the line with the dispatcher then, if that was a significant factor in why he did NOT confront TM earlier (when TM approached GZ in his vehicle)? If GZ believed a confrontation was likely imminent upon leaving his vehicle, why did he continue his dialogue with the dispatcher in the same manner he had previously? When the NEN call finally concluded, almost exactly 2 minutes after GZ says "Shit, he's running", GZ didn't appear to be in any sort of hurry to get off the phone, suggesting he had spotted TM and was trying to quickly end the call to conceal what he was about to do.

He had no basis for believing that, IMO.

From your perspective then, what could TM have done to give GZ a valid "basis" for believing that?

As I said above, I think it's a combination of actor and observer. I feel very confident that if it had been a 50-year-old white woman doing exactly what Trayvon Martin was doing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I realize the above quote wasn't addressed to me, but I agree with you, insofar as what GZ observed TM doing before calling the NEN. But again, that's because 50 year-old white women didn't fit the description of the still-at-large (and likely repeat offending) perpetrators of the recent burglaries/thefts in that community (8 reported over the 14 months preceding this incident, IIRC, in a community of only ~48 buildings).

ETA: OCNewbie, I watched part of that video, but really, that was after the incident, he knew he was in potentially deep doodoo, and so I'm not really sure what that is worth other than being his side of the story, which we already know.

It was less than 24 hours after the incident, waaaaaay before it became any kind of major story (at least ~10 days before, anyway). He was not under arrest at that time (wasn't arrested until 45 days after the incident), and was not under threat of arrest; he provided all his interviews, etc., voluntarily, without the guidance of an attorney. That video goes into a lot more detail about what was going through GZ's mind. I take the approach of first assuming he's telling the truth, while still scrutinizing his story to see if what he's saying makes sense.

 

[OCNewbie]

Most certainly prejudice and bigotry can come into play and greatly influence one's judgement and actions.

Here is a presentation of a relevant example:

It is unequivocal that prejudicial bias and limited, but anecdotal experiences do drive people to act and make decisions that more rationally aware people would check themselves against acting out in a similar way.

Here is a link to the original/main Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman thread - Link

If my math is correct, that thread will be 365 days old tomorrow, and currently has 46,100 posts and counting.

The number of posts in that thread by user Whiskey16: ZERO

This user has no interest in that topic, or this one. The above quoted post does not seek to add to the topic of discussion for this thread; it only seeks to personally attack Geosurface. It is my understanding that such personal attacks are not welcome in this forum.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

OC: Will respond in detail to your longer thread tomorrow.

But as a point of order, not posting in that monstrosity of a thread doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of interest in this subject, but rather a lack of interest in spending time on a year-long argument.

I haven't posted in there either, because it already had over 10,000 posts when I joined, and I was not interested in either jumping in without context or spending hours catching up. Furthermore, like most P&N threads, it's more heat than light.

 

[OCNewbie]

But as a point of order, not posting in that monstrosity of a thread doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of interest in this subject, but rather a lack of interest in spending time on a year-long argument.

I haven't posted in there either, because it already had over 10,000 posts when I joined, and I was not interested in either jumping in without context or spending hours catching up.

When Whiskey16 joined AT, the big GZ/TM thread hadn't even been created yet. He's been around since day 1 of that thread, since post 1 of that thread, since waaaay before it became a "monstrosity" of a thread, and yet he never bothered to post there.

His very first post in this thread is a personal attack post against another user who he has a history of being at odds with (to put it lightly). I might add that this user that he attacked has a LONG history of interest in this thread's topic, and is an active participant in this thread. Just because Whiskey16 made a minimal effort to disguise the fact that his post was designed to focus on his negative opinion of a specific user, doesn't change the actual nature of his post. He could have easily made his point without using Geosurface's quote as an "example". He's trying to incite bias towards Geo's point of view, and that's an attack. I hope he's asked to remove the portion he quoted, which was taken from an entirely different thread he was very vocally opposed to. This is not that thread, and attempts to change that shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Whiskey16]

Some hold personal prejudices against specific races/groups and this may provide an inclination to act against them.

This may also prompt an invigorating motivation to offer defence for those who are caught enacting upon a member of a marginalised race/group.

Moving on with such inclinations, some may carry forward with unfair and vigorously directed campaigns against those who dare to recognise social, if not just criminal wrongs.

In this particular case, it is healthy and wise to question and investigate plausible motivations for Trayvon Martin to have been targeted, approached, and ultimately shot dead, despite having been unarmed.

Vigilantism in a civil society is unhealthy and more often than not, unwarranted. This case would not have occurred if George Zimmerman was rational and abiding to his expected code of conduct among his neighbourhood watch. If Trayvon Martin was a bystander, who was aggressively approached and engaged by a deluded and armed man with a vigilante ethos, then a crime is instigated by the surviving man currently pleading a defence of innocence.

That such a crime may have also be motivated by racial prejudice exasperates the situation and conjures horrid history of racial persecution, localised judicial and law enforcement corruption to what was once commonplace lynching throughout the USA. The racial component is a prime instigator to lure in all forms of people for a discussion upon this topic. From all extremes -- hateful racial supremacists to contemporary civil rights campaigners and all in between.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

His very first post in this thread is a personal attack post against another user who he has a history of being at odds with (to put it lightly). I might add that this user that he attacked has a LONG history of interest in this thread's topic, and is an active participant in this thread. Just because Whiskey16 made a minimal effort to disguise the fact that his post was designed to focus on his negative opinion of a specific user, doesn't change the actual nature of his post.

Well, I'm sorry to say, but it does. Because absent the context you have that I do not, his post does not come across as a personal attack. I remember the thread that he linked, and Geosurface had people coming at him from all angles there, and frankly, to some extent deservedly so. It could be that it was just intended as a jab, but I have no way of knowing that specifically because it is disguised well.

If it is, I hope he'll not continue.

It comes across as a valid response because Geosurface raised the question of bias himself. As the judges say in the TV law shows: "he opened the door". Unfortunately, Geosurface's own past comments are in fact a good example of someone with a pretty strong racial bias who may not be aware of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't see how the above reinforces your original assertion that GZ called TM an asshole "based solely on his appearance".

First, I'm pretty sure I never said what you're quoting here. I said that I think GZ made his assessment not solely based on his behavior. Which isn't the same thing.

As for my comment, I believe that GZ is far more likely to have considered TM one of the "assholes who always gets away" because he was a young male in a hoodie, and not, say, a 60-year-old woman walking her dog.

And he's right -- that profile *does* make it more likely. But that would also, whether he realized it or not, color his future actions.

I imagine that could have played A factor, but I think such comments attempt to dismiss any of TM's behavior that GZ observed.

I won't dismiss it at all. I think both factors were involved.

Re: "If a young black male is doing X it is seen automatically as more "suspicious" by people like Zimmerman."

What do you mean by the underlined?

Cop wannabes.

So, clarify for me then why having "911" on the line would have made GZ initiating a confrontation not "the wisest move"? Is it your inclination to believe that because "911" was on the line, that was the only reason GZ didn't confront TM in that opportune moment?

Of course not. But I still don't find the argument that if GZ wanted to do TM harm he could have done it at that time particularly compelling.

If you believe that GZ exited his vehicle with confrontation on his mind, why did he remain on the line with the dispatcher then, if that was a significant factor in why he did NOT confront TM earlier (when TM approached GZ in his vehicle)? If GZ believed a confrontation was likely imminent upon leaving his vehicle, why did he continue his dialogue with the dispatcher in the same manner he had previously? When the NEN call finally concluded, almost exactly 2 minutes after GZ says "Shit, he's running", GZ didn't appear to be in any sort of hurry to get off the phone, suggesting he had spotted TM and was trying to quickly end the call to conceal what he was about to do.

Sorry, you've lost me here.

From your perspective then, what could TM have done to give GZ a valid "basis" for believing that?

Nothing. You cannot reasonably infer that a person was involved in a prior crime based on appearance or on the "way they are behaving" in terms of walking on the street.

I realize the above quote wasn't addressed to me, but I agree with you, insofar as what GZ observed TM doing before calling the NEN. But again, that's because 50 year-old white women didn't fit the description of the still-at-large (and likely repeat offending) perpetrators of the recent burglaries/thefts in that community (8 reported over the 14 months preceding this incident, IIRC, in a community of only ~48 buildings).

And I'll admit that that does make sense. But again, it would still color his disposition. Based on appearance he had more reason to be suspect of behavior he wouldn't have found suspect in anyone else.

Essentially, Martin was profiled by Zimmerman.

It was less than 24 hours after the incident, waaaaaay before it became any kind of major story (at least ~10 days before, anyway). He was not under arrest at that time (wasn't arrested until 45 days after the incident), and was not under threat of arrest; he provided all his interviews, etc., voluntarily, without the guidance of an attorney. That video goes into a lot more detail about what was going through GZ's mind. I take the approach of first assuming he's telling the truth, while still scrutinizing his story to see if what he's saying makes sense.

C'mon. He had just shot and killed someone, and he had to be aware of both the seriousness of that and also of the potential racial implications.

I have no evidence that he cooked his story, but human nature being what it is, I'd be foolish to think it isn't possible, if not probable, that he'd do whatever possible in his power to minimize his chances of getting in legal hot water.

I think these particulars are what we should wait for the trial on. There's really not much point in speculating about them, and that's one of the reasons I ignore that crazy-long thread.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It was not an assumption. It was a logical inference given that you had reply-quoted someone discussing suspicious behavior, which has been the topic of most of this thread.

Also, you originally said: "Trying walking into a bank, taking pictures and measuring distances from the door to the counters."

That doesn't describe someone there for a remodeling job, who would be expected to be there by the bank, and therefore whose measuring and photographing would not raise suspicion in the first place.

You jumped to the conclusion based on a person's action. Now you are stating that what they were doing was unreasonable in the circumstances. A customer wants into the bank. They may not know about the rework and see the same as you did. It is still the same scenario, judgement call made based on observation and perceived unreasonable behavior.

Your are trying to water down the initial impression, qualify or negate it.

But no matter how you spin it, you initially made a call was made that could have been easily right or wrong.


Did you try to get additional info or did you pull the trigger?

The same happened in Sanford. Zimmerman made a judgement call based on what he observed.

 

[Whiskey16]

Because absent the context you have that I do not, his post does not come across as a personal attack.

Yes, I presented an honest, fair, and topical perspective that was not to maliciously misdirect this thread. If an offense was found, then it is of the supporting material that I offered to answer the topical question. I am not the author of such offensive bigotry, therefore it is unfair to hold blame upon me for not tolerating and therefore opting not to ignore the existence of such material when a fair assessment of prejudice was asked for, ironically by the very same author.

A question of the possibility of prejudicial bias based upon appearance was raised. In all fairness, I answered it. On topic and politely to the point.

We are all here to be civil and avoid raising the heat by intentionally going off topic to unfairly attempt to defame another member.

I felt the need to defensively clarify all of that, in light of two previous posts by the same author that are nothing but off-topic, malicious, and innuendo based personal attacks against myself and my character:

I hope he's asked to remove the portion he quoted, which was taken from an entirely different thread he was very vocally opposed to. This is not that thread, and attempts to change that shouldn't be allowed.

Only you have attempted to change direction of this thread with two posts that are nothing but personalised rants against myself. You did not directly rebuttal my points, you made the effort to compose two posts that are only personalised tirades against my character.

Often the content of presented ideas in different threads do merge. Regardless if you feel ruffled, we should not desire an active and biased censorship against recorded history when a fair and well warranted perspective concerning a theme of a current thread is called for -- Geosurface did call for an answer.

OCNewbie, you may take offensive to the meme of racial prejudice being examined in this Trayvon Martin case and in the life of this forum. Yet in chastising me for a non-existent off-topic and personal attack that does not give you justification to -- ironically, again -- be the only one vigorously motivated to rush forth with ad hominem and innuendo based personal attacks against myself in a misdirected effort to defend the content of Geosurface and unsatisfactorily discount my validated answer of prejudicial bias indeed existing against the observed appearance of people.

 

[OCNewbie]

I don't see how the above reinforces your original assertion that GZ called TM an asshole "based solely on his appearance".

First, I'm pretty sure I never said what you're quoting here. I said that I think GZ made his assessment not solely based on his behavior. Which isn't the same thing.

Here ya go; the post I'm referencing in its entirety:

Really? There's no malice in calling someone an "asshole"? Based solely on his appearance?

Just wanted to respond quickly to this. Haven't yet read the remainder of your latest reply.

 

[OCNewbie]

Nothing. You cannot reasonably infer that a person was involved in a prior crime based on appearance or on the "way they are behaving" in terms of walking on the street.

Really? I find it incredibly hard to believe that you've given thorough consideration to the part underlined above.

Have a look at this:

If what you say is true, then why do police departments bother putting out vague (demonstrated quite well in the above picture) composite sketches of people they believe to be responsible for crimes? And they don't just propagate these sketches among law enforcement personnel (trained professionals), they (sometimes) share them with the public at large (as seen above). Why share such information, which is purely appearance-based, if it isn't seen as an effective means of narrowing down the list of those one should be on the lookout for?

Why do communities form neighborhood watch organizations? What are they supposed to "watch" for if not for behavior and appearances? Why are such organizations encouraged, endorsed, and facilitated by actual law enforcement agencies? The idea is to prevent crime before it happens, and you don't do that by ignoring what you recognize, as a resident familiar with your community, as unusual. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, it's not an exact science; mistakes are made, and people are occasionally offended, embarrassed, inconvenienced, etc. There isn't an exact science for crime prevention on a neighborhood stage, so using human intuition (with all its flaws) is the only real option.

Read the sign in the above picture. It's essentially saying: there are members of this community that have been trained by law enforcement personnel (like GZ was) "to report suspicious activity or persons in the neighborhood" to the local law enforcement agency. Is that not exactly what GZ was doing when he called the NEN?

 

[Geosurface]

I completely agree with what OCNewbie is saying about using appearance as a valid basis for narrowing your search in a specific crime... or, as was the case with GZ's neighborhood, a series of similar crimes committed by a group of similar individuals (same age, gender, race.) I think if law enforcement and even neighborhood watch groups were prohibited (somehow) from taking this things into account at all, well then you really would be obligated to either be harassing the 60 year old woman carrying her groceries... or sort of just blindly not noticing anything and being more vulnerable to the crimes in question.

To clarify, my earlier question was about people looking suspicious based on how they carried themselves, dressed, looked around, etc... their general demeanor and posture. I was not talking about "bias and prejudice" etc.