🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/27/2012 10:36 AM, DanS wrote:
> Wolf K<wekirch@sympatico.ca>  wrote in
> news:8Mjcr.11402$Cc4.10781@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> On 27/03/2012 8:46 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> Metspitzer<Kilowatt@charter.net>   wrote in
>>> news:vmp1n7dp8ji8pq8b1vv0v4fm6184ctoc9u@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:27:40 -0400, Wolf K
>>>> <wekirch@sympatico.ca>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/03/26
>>>>> /tr
>>>>> ayvon-martins-psychological-killer-why-we-see-guns-that-a
>>>>> ren t-there/
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf K.
>>>>
>>>> When George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin walking down the
>>>> street in Sanford, Florida, he quickly assumed that the
>>>> Black, hoodie-clad teenager was carrying a weapon.
>>>>
>>>> He then pulled out his gun and fatally shot the young
>>>> student, whose hands were gripping nothing more than a
>>>> bag of Skittles.
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -- --------------------- Wow.........that is totally NOT
>>>> how it happened.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right.
>>>
>>> I saw a video on Youtube of some Foxnews like broadcast
>>> where the people said, "Zimmerman saw a black kid walking
>>> down the sidewalk and didn't like it, so he decided to
>>> shoot him."
>>
>> The spins on the story are irrelevant to the point of the
>> Sci Am article, which is that racial stereotypes influence
>> our decisions/actions below the level of conscious
>> awareness, and thus do in fact result in more black deaths
>> (among other things, such as putting spin on a story).
>>
>> One of dearest illusions is that our choices and decisions
>> are conscious and rational. They aren't. At best we may
>> have time to review the choices our subconscious serves up.
>> But even the decision to review a decision comes from the
>> subconscious, which must have time and inclination to make
>> it. IOW, it's only when we have sufficient time between the
>> decision-trigger and the action that we _may_ be able to
>> second-guess ourselves and act more rationally. But if we
>> are in the grip of an emotion that's pushing us in certain
>> direction, it's unlikely that the subconscious will serve
>> up the decision to second-guess ourselves. Reason
>> calculates, emotion selects.
>>
>> IMO, Zimmerman was gripped by such an emotion, which made
>> it essentially impossible for him to consider the
>> possibility that the hooded figure was a) not an intruder;
>> and b) seeing him as the aggressor. Some recent data
>> suggests that now he is well aware that he made some bad
>> and unreasonable decisions, but it's too late,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> And that ends my comments on this issue.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Don't you think the kid going back to Zimmerman, confronting
> him, and attacking him, was a bad decision on it's own? I
> mean, if he was being "chased" and "got away", why go and
> confront the guy doing the chasing?

Why couldn't kid stand his ground? What can't the kid  have stand your 
ground rights. He got away his girlfriend says, and she said he had 
thought he had lost Zimmerman.  Why couldn't he mount a aggressive move 
to protect himself if he felt cornered when Zimmerman appeared again?

On its own, it was a bad decision on Zimmerman's part to pursue. Why 
didn't Zimmerman back off? Why didn't Zimmerman state his purpose that 
could have defused the situation and do it at a distance?

But guess what the kid is dead and will never tell his side of the 
story, because he his dead dead dead.
>
> (PS- *If* that's the way it happened, which is what the
> physical evidence points towards.)

The evidence is that Zimmerman lost the battle, but he became man when 
he pulled the trigger - great equalizer.