# Mob mentality and the rush to judgment...



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

This is what it leads to, people.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/ne...-george-zimmerman-dpgonc-20120328-fc_18875354



> Elderly Couple Abandons Florida Home after Address Tweeted as George Zimmerman's
> 
> Updated: Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012, 8:44 AM EDT
> Published : Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012, 8:30 AM EDT
> ...


...


> The tweets were traced back to a man in California and William Zimmerman pleaded with him to stop.
> 
> The man responded, "Black power all day. No justice, no peace" along with an obscenity.
> 
> The original tweet containing the address was also reportedly retweeted by director Spike Lee to his almost 250,000 followers.



Remember, the important thing about justice is that it must be seen to be done.  Guilt and innocence do not matter.

Young man with bag of Skittles in his pocket shot by an older man?  What is important is NOT what happened.  What is important is that the media whip up a frenzy, that outraged citizens DEMAND JUSTICE, and that someone, ANYONE, be made to pay.

This is not white versus black, poor versus rich, or anything else.  This is populist media-led feeding frenzy, and too many people have lost their common sense and joined in the braying like jackasses.  What if someone had burned down those people's house?  Or attacked them physically?  What kind of jerks get sucked up into this hoodie-wearing solidarity crap?

Some of you should be ashamed.  Unfortunately, the ones who should be most ashamed, don't get it and are incapable of getting it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Yeah, don't all rush to admit you were part of the feeding frenzy.  Hope you feel some shame for your part in it.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 28, 2012)

Doesn't matter whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this type of behavior is just asinine.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Doesn't matter whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this type of behavior is just asinine.



It starts with calls for Zimmerman to be arrested before the police have even finished investigating, before the Grand Jury has been seated, just because the media whips up a feeding frenzy and people are IDIOTS and fall for it.  Out of 100 outraged morons, there are always a couple who will take things even further.  But the other 98 morons share some responsibility here.

I'm glad the elderly couple has not been injured nor had their house damaged by the idiot criminals calling for their death on Twitter like a howling braying mob at the moment.  I would hope that if it did happen, a few of the morons would think about their part in it and regret retweeting the address and urging others to go and deal out street justice to them.

But like a Lynch mob when they finally reach that cathartic moment of seeing the dead man's feet twitching at the end of a rope, they won't feel shame.  They'll go home and feel like heroes, and anyone who implies that they are lilly-livered cowards, haters, and criminals will be treated with disdain.  It's nobody's fault, is it?  No, no one bears responsibility when these things happen.  Just the way things go.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It starts with calls for Zimmerman to be arrested before the police have even finished investigating, before the Grand Jury has been seated, just because the media whips up a feeding frenzy and people are IDIOTS and fall for it.



You do know that what caused the outrage was that the investigation was finished, and that a Grand Jury was never empaneled, when plenty of extant evidence suggested guilt, don't you?  It's disingenuous to claim that everyone should have calmly awaited the results of an investigation, when the anger and outrage is the only thing that induced the investigations that we have now.

I share no responsibility for Higgins or Lee or anyone who does anything based on their stupid actions.  I call for justice and the rule of law, always, which is what seemed to be so lacking in this case.  Higgins and Lee don't fit into that.  I owe no apologies.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> You do know that what caused the outrage was that the investigation was finished, and that a Grand Jury was never empaneled, when plenty of extant evidence suggested guilt, don't you?  It's disingenuous to claim that everyone should have calmly awaited the results of an investigation, when the anger and outrage is the only thing that induced the investigations that we have now.
> 
> I share no responsibility for Higgins or Lee or anyone who does anything based on their stupid actions.  I call for justice and the rule of law, always, which is what seemed to be so lacking in this case.  Higgins and Lee don't fit into that.  I owe no apologies.



In every violent mob, the majority of the people in it do not commit acts of violence themselves.  They're merely part of the crowd.  And they're never guilty of anything; just ask them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In every violent mob, the majority of the people in it do not commit acts of violence themselves.  They're merely part of the crowd.  And they're never guilty of anything; just ask them.



If calling for justice and the rule of law makes me part of a "violent mob", then sir, so it must be.  However, the rule of law applies as much to Zimmerman as it does to Martin.  The actions of Higgins and Lee are no part of the rule of law.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> If calling for justice and the rule of law makes me part of a "violent mob", then sir, so it must be.  However, the rule of law applies as much to Zimmerman as it does to Martin.  The actions of Higgins and Lee are no part of the rule of law.



While we're at it, precisely what am I guilty of?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> While we're at it, precisely what am I guilty of?



What indeed?  There are many points along the continuum of outrage.  I don't believe you have urged violence or vigilante justice.  However, all this outrage has a rather predictable outcome, and it's not incorrect to note that the climate provides the pressure that causes fringe elements to act.  After all, Terry Jones just burned a Koran.  He didn't actually kill anyone.  Someone else did that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What indeed?  There are many points along the continuum of outrage.  I don't believe you have urged violence or vigilante justice.  However, all this outrage has a rather predictable outcome, and it's not incorrect to note that the climate provides the pressure that causes fringe elements to act.  After all, Terry Jones just burned a Koran.  He didn't actually kill anyone.  Someone else did that.



So, in your view, can one ever express a view against an outrage that may have "mob elements" without sharing in the guilt for what may happen?

Let's say tomorrow someone shoots the Pope on international television, and the killer walks free (for now).  You insist the killer should be arrested and charged, and given all due process.  Someone else murders the killer in his bed the next night.  Do you share responsibility?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> So, in your view, can one ever express a view against an outrage that may have "mob elements" without sharing in the guilt for what may happen?



Every action has consequences.  Shall we pretend that they do not?  Some are more predictable than others.



> Let's say tomorrow someone shoots the Pope on international television, and the killer walks free (for now).  You insist the killer should be arrested and charged, and given all due process.  Someone else murders the killer in his bed the next night.  Do you share responsibility?



Using your example, to a very small extent, yes; assuming that's all they do.  But let's extend it.  Now I am not just 'insisting' that the killer be arrested, I am taking part in marches, where I wear a Pope hat and carry signs stating _"We are all the Pope!"_  I insist that this is not about a person who shot the Pope, but instead it is an attack on all Catholics, an attack on all religious.  I do my best to polarize religious/anti-religious viewpoints; I insist that if one is young, religious and wears a Pope hat, one is targeted for execution by the non-religious.  [You realize I'm not making this up, right?  I'm taking this straight from what has happened to date in the Zimmerman case.]  I make sure this is seen as a 'religious thing' and not just a crime.  I demand that the prosecutors and police in Italy be arrested, they're obviously biased against Catholics.  Politicians and celebrities chime in, defending the religious against the evil non-religious who are obviously intent on killing all religious.  

And finally, someone posts a supposed address on Twitter of the killer and urges Catholics or Christians or just the religious in general to go and do what must be done.

And if someone takes it seriously enough to go and do just that...who is responsible?  No one?  Everyone?  

I can't pick someone out of that crowd and say "You, sir, are 22.5% responsible!"  It doesn't work that way.  But clearly, nothing happens in a vacuum.  Someone did the crime.  Someone posted the 'wrong address'.  Someone incited others to act.  Someone argued that the entire incident of Pope-shooting wasn't an attack on one man, but an attack on all religious.  Someone marches around with Pope hats on, shouting that "We are all the Pope."  Someone raised their voices on discussion forums and blasted others who didn't share their outrage at the attack and the apparent lack of outrage and justice.

Responsible?  Yes.  How much?  Look in the mirror and decide.  If you find my arguments invalid, so mote it be; I'm not your personal accuser, my anger is directed at the same continuum of nameless, faceless morons who started this ball rolling.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> You do know that what caused the outrage was that the investigation was finished, and that a Grand Jury was never empaneled, when plenty of extant evidence suggested guilt, don't you?



I'm still waiting for the "plenty of evidence" that proves his guilt, to show up.  At this time, nobody has all of the facts in hand, and what little evidence does exist, seems to support Zimmerman's side of the story, that Trayvon Martin was the one who initiated the violence.  

The police are also in agreement, that the evidence supports Zimmerman.  

Furthermore, in the end, it's up to the prosecution to prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.  Given the situation, even Hercules would find this to be a monumental task, since quite a bit of reasonable doubt already exists.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Responsible?  Yes.  How much?  Look in the mirror and decide.



Everyone is responsible for what they do.  I am responsible for calling for investigations, justice and the rule of law.  I would call for these things in any and all circumstances.  Others are responsible for posting addresses.  Yet others are responsible for any violent acts they commit.  So no, I would have no responsibility for any violent acts that may be committed.

Saying I would be is a frankly indefensible argument, for the reason that it impeaches anyone, anywhere, who takes *any *stand on a controversial issue.  That is untenable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Everyone is responsible for what they do.  I am responsible for calling for investigations, justice and the rule of law.  I would call for these things in any and all circumstances.  Others are responsible for posting addresses.  Yet others are responsible for any violent acts they commit.  So no, I would have no responsibility for any violent acts that may be committed.
> 
> Saying I would be is a frankly indefensible argument, for the reason that it impeaches anyone, anywhere, who takes *any *stand on a controversial issue.  That is untenable.



Each of these things is built upon the others.  Without popular outrage, no marches.  Without marches, no politicians and celebrities chiming in.  Without politicians and celebrities, no one is motivated to go find an address for the supposed killer.  Without an address for the supposed killer, no one endlessly reposts threats of violence and urges someone to take action.  Without incitements to action, no one has an address to go to and the desire to harm the supposed killer...it's all connected.

You argue the reverse - that no one is responsible except the person who actually commits a crime.  Everything happens in a vacuum, and nothing influences anything else.  I don't know you explain that the supposed killer (or some innocent proxy for same) was gunned down by a guy who just MAGICKED his address out of thin air.

I argue a continuum of choices that lead inexorably to the final resulting action. You argue that nothing causes anything; stuff just happens.  Sorry, I'll stick with my interpretation.

EDIT: And by the way, under your interpretation, people who urge others to kill are not responsible in any way if they decide to do it.  Interesting.  So Terry Jones has no moral responsibility for what happened in Pakistan when the UN workers were murdered by angry mobs after he burned a Koran?  Even though he knew that was the likely outcome of his actions, none of it was his fault; he's as pure as the driven snow?  Again, interesting.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> I'm still waiting for the "plenty of evidence" that proves his guilt, to show up.  At this time, nobody has all of the facts in hand, and what little evidence does exist, seems to support Zimmerman's side of the story, that Trayvon Martin was the one who initiated the violence.



Zimmerman's side of the story has changed.  You realize this, right?  The initial story was that he did not follow Martin at all.  The story was then that he had exited his vehicle to check what street he was on, and was attacked by Martin from behind as he was returning to his vehicle and he didn't see him coming.  *Now *the story is that he did follow Martin, they exchanged words, and then Martin started a physical altercation with a single blow to the nose.

So right off the bat, Zimmerman was lying at some point - or the police got his story wrong in their reports.  Even the bloody nose, head lacerations, and wet shirt did not show up in the first police report - those details were in the second, written later.  The police also stated that Zimmerman was not seriously injured, and did not seek out medical attention at the hospital, which impeaches the claim that Zimmerman had a broken nose and that his head was slammed against the concrete.  So there is every reason to doubt Zimmerman's story.

Evidence for?  The 911 tapes, which demonstrate in Zimmerman's own words that he followed Martin, and that he believed Martin was guilty of something and that he might get away.  This evidence definitively disproved his first story.  They also speak to state of mind.  There is also the testimony of Martin's girlfriend at the time, and phone records indicate that such a call was in progress at the time of the event.  She testified that Martin said he was being followed, and was trying to escape.  She then testified that Martin questioned someone why he was following him, and then either Martin or the headset was knocked to the ground.  Self-defense claims do not apply to pursuing someone on foot, and in fact Martin would have been justified in using force to defend himself based on these complementary pieces of evidence.

Evidence against?  A witness statement from the middle of an altercation saying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and getting the better of him.  This does not speak to self-defense either, as Zimmerman pursued Martin, nor does it speak to the beginning of the altercation.  We also have Zimmerman's story, which has changed several times, and is unreliable for reasons already explained.  We also have injuries that did not require hospital treatment, and yet supposedly put such a fear of life and limb into Zimmerman that lethal force was justified - in a confrontation he sought out by pursuit, against the request of police dispatch.

Can reasonable doubt exist?  Yes.  However, that is for the jury to decide.  Rather famously, "a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich", a deeper investigation was certainly justified - an investigation which did not occur.  An investigation also impeached by testimony from several witnesses that the police corrected their testimony or were not interested in it in the first place, because it went against their narrative.  All of these things point to a gravely mishandled case.

It's not surprising, but it is confounding, how all of this information can exist, and yet Zimmerman's side of the story is leaked and suddenly "the evidence supports Zimmerman."  *********.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And by the way, under your interpretation, people who urge others to kill are not responsible in any way if they decide to do it.



No, they are responsible for urging others to kill.  People in such circumstances are charged with incitement or similar charges.  They are not charged with first degree murder.

The alternative makes people agitating for valid and just causes responsible for what other people choose to do.  It's untenable.  Responsibility and connection are different things.  Perhaps I slow you down on the freeway just a bit this morning, and that makes you late enough to work that you are fired.  In a fit of depression over your job loss, you then kill yourself.  I am connected to your suicide.  I am not responsible for it.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Zimmerman's side of the story has changed.  You realize this, right?  The initial story was that he did not follow Martin at all.  The story was then that he had exited his vehicle to check what street he was on, and was attacked by Martin from behind as he was returning to his vehicle and he didn't see him coming.  *Now *the story is that he did follow Martin, they exchanged words, and then Martin started a physical altercation with a single blow to the nose.



And, bashed his head against the concrete over and over.  Again, the medical reports support this, and the police agree.  



> Evidence for?  The 911 tapes, which demonstrate in Zimmerman's own words that he followed Martin, and that he believed Martin was guilty of something and that he might get away.



If you actually read the transcripts, the dispatcher told him that he didn't have to follow Martin, at which point, he said "OK."  He ended up going back to his vehicle, at which point, Martin followed him.  



> It's not surprising, but it is confounding, how all of this information can exist, and yet Zimmerman's side of the story is leaked and suddenly "the evidence supports Zimmerman."  *********.



Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence.  The police agree on this matter as well.  So far, there's plenty of reasonable doubt to quench your desire for Zimmerman's blood.

As for accusations of changing stories, or mis-representation, maybe you should take a look a the mainstream media, as well as the Sharpton / Jackson groupies?  Originally the story from them was that some huge 250 lb guy shot and killed a 140 pound choir boy in cold blood.  It must be rather disheartening to their side, that the alleged 250 lb guy was really a 180 lb guy who isn't exactly a poster child for being physically fit, and that their alleged 140 lb choir boy was really a 160 lb troublemaker who had committed several criminal acts along the way.  As more information rolls out, it looks worse and worse for the hate mongers out there.  

This whole rush to judgement reminds me of the time when the WWE wrestler, Chris Benoit, murdered his wife and son, and then committed suicide.  In a rush to look like the good guys, Vince MacMahon and co. put on a tribute for Chris Benoit without knowing all of the facts.  After the facts came forth, they had to issue one heck of a mea culpa...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> No, they are responsible for urging others to kill.  People in such circumstances are charged with incitement or similar charges.  They are not charged with first degree murder.



I have not at any point indicated that I think the people who ranted and raved about the Zimmerman case were guilty of murder.  Again, this all or nothing thing from you.  Either they're guilty of murder or they share no blame.



> The alternative makes people agitating for valid and just causes responsible for what other people choose to do.  It's untenable.  Responsibility and connection are different things.  Perhaps I slow you down on the freeway just a bit this morning, and that makes you late enough to work that you are fired.  In a fit of depression over your job loss, you then kill yourself.  I am connected to your suicide.  I am not responsible for it.



As i said, every action has consequences.  Some are more obvious than others.  You could not know, cutting me off on the highway, that I'd lose my job and then my grip on sanity.  No one could even reasonably suspect that.

But it's not hard to deduce where other actions might lead.  The degree of blame (if you prefer the term in place of guilt) depends entirely on to what extent a person participating could reasonably anticipate (or even desire) further consequences.

I sincerely doubt that many OWS protesters who decided to stay and be arrested wanted to throw bottles at the police.  But someone did.  And it was pretty predictable, since that's basically what always happens in street mobs.  Under your theory, it all happens in a vacuum.  If the mob hadn't been there screaming and taunting police, the ruffians who threw the bottles would have just spontaneously done it on their own, in the middle of an empty street at non-existent police in riot gear.  Actions have consequences. Some are more predictable than others.  If you don't think you bear any responsibility for anything you do not personally do with your own hands, go join Terry Jones in the "I am an innocent person" line.  Like you, he did nothing he should be ashamed of, right?


----------



## MJS (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is what it leads to, people.
> 
> http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/ne...-george-zimmerman-dpgonc-20120328-fc_18875354
> 
> ...



I've said many times, that we should take what the media says, with a grain of salt.  That other thread is 10+ pages long, but IIRC, I don't recall saying that 1 person was definately guilty.  If I did, well, I apologize in advance.  However, what I do believe I did do, is just go on whatever was posted in the press and try to give my opinion.  The story changes every day, so I suppose until the final verdict is in, its all speculation.  

As far as this goes....well, thats just messed up IMO.  

Whats interesting though....if none of this stuff was ever posted, there would be no news, no papers, no magazines, nothing.  And The Study, as we know it, would not exist.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 28, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> And, bashed his head against the concrete over and over.  Again, the medical reports support this, and the police agree.



The police report (there was no medical report) stated that he had an lacerations to the back of his head.  Which he did not seek medical attention for, and which the police stated were not serious.  This is not consistent with "bashed his head against the concrete over and over".  And for that matter, if Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete "over and over", how did he manage to draw and fire?  You simply accept his story uncritically.



Grenadier said:


> He ended up going back to his vehicle, at which point, Martin followed him.



That is Zimmerman's story, which you again accept uncritically, and is contravened by other testimony - which you have ignored.



Grenadier said:


> Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence.



His statement is only consistent with two pieces of evidence, and not fully.  Other evidence contravenes his statement (which has changed).  You have not answered this evidence.



Grenadier said:


> The police agree on this matter as well.



Interestingly, it was leaked recently that the lead investigator wanted manslaughter charges, but the prosecutor disagreed.  Who knows if it's true or *** covering, and it doesn't explain Chief Lee's statements, but it might cut against this.



Grenadier said:


> So far, there's plenty of reasonable doubt to quench your desire for Zimmerman's blood.



That's not what I've called for.  Don't be an *******, please.



Grenadier said:


> It must be rather disheartening to their side, that the alleged 250 lb guy was really a 180 lb guy who isn't exactly a poster child for being physically fit, and that their alleged 140 lb choir boy was really a 160 lb troublemaker who had committed several criminal acts along the way.  As more information rolls out, it looks worse and worse for the hate mongers out there.



You, uh, sort of ignored the point.  While uncritically accepting one side of the story.

Just for the record, "committed several criminal acts" = excessive tardiness and bringing an empty baggie with "marijuana traces" in it to school.

Jesus, this whole post is an exercise in extreme cognitive dissonance.  You decry a "rush to judgment" while making a full judgment favoring one side yourself, a judgment which ignores countervailing evidence, and inconsistencies.  Meanwhile, the people demanding a full investigation, and for Zimmerman to be treated like most anyone else in a similar situation, are "out for blood."

We have met the enemy, and he is us.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 28, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> The police report (there was no medical report) stated that he had an lacerations to the back of his head.  Which he did not seek medical attention for, and which the police stated were not serious.  This is not consistent with "bashed his head against the concrete over and over".  And for that matter, if Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete "over and over", how did he manage to draw and fire?  You simply accept his story uncritically.



Again, you don't know what went on.  The injuries he received are consistent with the story that he told, and the police agree.  Right away, this puts a huge obstacle in an attempt to find him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  



> That is Zimmerman's story, which you again accept uncritically, and is contravened by other testimony - which you have ignored.



The testimony of Zimmerman was supported by the evidence, and the police.  If there really is some piece of evidence that shows otherwise, I'd really like to see it.  Until it shows itself, though, you still can't prove him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  



> Interestingly, it was leaked recently that the lead investigator wanted manslaughter charges, but the prosecutor disagreed.  Who knows if it's true or *** covering, and it doesn't explain Chief Lee's statements, but it might cut against this.



Investigators do not decide what charges are brought forth.  That is the sole decision of the prosecuting attorney.  Thus, what the purported leak claims is of no relevance here.  



> That's not what I've called for.  Don't be an *******, please.



Please feel free to attack the message.  I choose not to engage in personal attacks here.


On another note, you somehow forgot to mention vandalism of school property in Martin's listing...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

MJS said:


> Whats interesting though....if none of this stuff was ever posted, there would be no news, no papers, no magazines, nothing.  And The Study, as we know it, would not exist.



True enough.  We humans seem to be motivated by popular outrage, don't we?  I'm even being motivated by outrage at the outrage.  Backlash against the backlash, as it were.  I suppose the history of the world is like that.

However, I believe it is also true that things are not disconnected from each other.  Actions have consequences.  One person posts on a forum about their disgust and anger, another reads it and writes an angry letter to the editor of the local newspaper, someone reads it and decides to plan a protest, someone attends the protest and starts urging action if the police won't act, someone hears that and finds the address they suppose is that of the object of their anger and tweets it, another retweets it and adds a threat, and....

None of it would have happened without the beginning actions.  And while you're right, if no one made angry statements, the forums would be pretty dull, at some point a tipping point is reached.  Some angry discussions never reach that point.  Some do.  But it seemed to me from the beginning that this case was going to be manipulated by the media and by those with an anti-police or race-based ax to grind to their own advantage.  It just looked like a train wreck coming to me.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 28, 2012)

Even if you point out to the ones who received the tweets, that they got the wrong Zimmerman, there are a bunch of those in the mob who are out for blood, and would all but ignore such information.  Sometimes, some people want to believe in something so much, that they'll go to extraordinary lengths to cling to that belief.  

For example, if we look at the Crystal Mangum / Duke Lacrosse case, even after a lot of the information came forth, there were still many individuals who refused to believe anything except for the assertion that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty.  To this date, some of those individuals still believe that Crystal Mangum got railroaded.  The same could be said about the individuals who fervently believed in Tawana Brawley.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

http://rt.com/usa/news/arrest-panther-zimmerman-new-688/



> The New Black Panther Party member behind the call for vigilante justice against Trayvon Martin's killer has been arrested.
> 
> *On Monday Hashim Nzinga was imprisoned for an unrelated weapons charge.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's all about justice.  It's all about truth and honesty and beauty and all that happy horse crap.  And no one is responsible for anything.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

Spike Lee mans up - after the fact - for tweeting the wrong address for G. Zimmerman and urging people to 'take action' on the Zimmerman's house.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/15378837...ers-in-trayvon-martin-case/?playlist_id=87937

A) Tweeting the 'wrong address' is a bad thing.
B) Tweeting the 'right' address is ALSO a bad thing.

This vigilantism masquerading as popular outrage has to stop.  More and more, our nation is turning into a mob of DIY justice morons.  You don't understand our laws, you don't care that you don't understand, you just want to see someone strung up for a crime you feel has been committed.  Justice my ***.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2012)

Absolutely agree with your last there, Bill.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> More and more, our nation is turning into a mob of DIY justice morons.



I disagree, I think the opposite is true.  People get upset, but they demand change from the system, they generally don't take matters into their own hands.  When it does happen, it's usually an individual, not a mob.  Lynch mobs used to be commonplace things - when was the last time something similar happened?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2012)

I think Bill was meaning the mob mentality part of ranting for 'instant justice' which, of course, is no such thing rather than the actually carrying out such abhorrent vengeance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> I disagree, I think the opposite is true.  People get upset, but they demand change from the system, they generally don't take matters into their own hands.  When it does happen, it's usually an individual, not a mob.  Lynch mobs used to be commonplace things - when was the last time something similar happened?



Sukerkin said it quite well for me.  It's not so much the final action (like storming the house of a people incorrectly presumed to be the evil parents of the evil shooter).  It's the mentality that permits such 'demands' to even be seen as legitimate.  The 'demand for justice' is nonesuch.   It's a demand for the appearance of justice as wished for by the mob.

To even demand the *'arrest of Zimmerman'* betrays such a lack of understanding of how our legal system works, it boggles the mind.  ARREST?  Does anyone actually know what the purpose of arresting someone is?  No, it's clear most do not.  They see it as some form of official recognition that a crime has been committed, which it is not.

Zimmerman has not fled prosecution or otherwise absconded.  There is, presumably, no indication that he will do so (else the police would have a good reason to perform an arrest).  If charges are forthcoming, the police will seek an arrest warrant and take him into custody, at which time he'll be arraigned and a bail hearing set.  If he is granted bail, he is then released again until trial.

So _'arrest Zimmerman'_ means WHAT, exactly?

The howling mobs are howling idiots, is what.


----------

