Three Cases of Private Citizens Shooting and Killing People

Let's see if we can see anything odd about how the following three cases played out.

Case #1

Date of Shooting: February 27^th, 2012

Location: Orlando, Florida

Shooter: George Zimmerman

Deceased: Trayvon Martin

Details: Trayvon Martin was walking home around 7pm after purchasing a can of tea and a bag of skittles. Trayvon's father lived in a gated community in Orlando, and Martin was visiting. George Zimmerman, self- appointed neighborhood watch captain saw Martin and called a non-emergency line to ask for the police to come because "there's a real suspicious guy." Dispatch asks if Zimmerman is pursuing the "suspicious guy." Zimmerman says he is, dispatch tells Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that." and Zimmerman replies "Okay." (Though you can still hear Zimmerman continuing to run.) Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and shot him after a confrontation. Zimmerman claims to have shot in self-defense.

Resolution: Zimmerman was detained and questioned and then released that night. The police ended their investigation with no arrest.

Shooter: Deceased:

Case #2

Date of Shooting: November 14^th, 2007

Location: Pasadena, Texas

Shooter: Joe Horn

Deceased: Diego Ortiz and Hernando Torres

Details: Horn witnessed Ortiz and Torres breaking into his neighbor's vacant house. He contacted 911 and informed them of the robbery and said, "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop 'em?" The dispatcher says, "Nope, don't do that." After being repeatedly told to not leave the house, Horn leaves the house and shoots both men, claiming they stepped into his yard. Both men were unarmed, and a police officer that arrived on the scene reported that both suspects had been shot in the back.

Resolution: A grand jury cleared Joe Horn.

Shooter: Deceased:

Case #3

Date of Shooting: August 9^th, 2006

Shooter: John White

Victim: Daniel Cicciaro

Location: Long Island, New York

Details: John White was awoken around 11pm by his son, Aaron, telling him that a group of classmates, including Daniel Cicciaro, were on their porch, yelling for Aaron to come out so they could fight him. They reportedly were also yelling racial epithets. Cicciaro and his friends wanted to confront Aaron over a false rumor that had been spread on facebook. John White grabbed an unregistered pistol and went out on the porch to confront the group. The group didn't disperse, and Daniel pushed the gun away. John White shot Cicciaro once, killing him.

Resolution: John White was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to two to four years. Governor David Paterson commuted John White's sentence shortly before leaving office. A move that garnered Paterson a lot of flack.

Shooter: Deceased:

So, in this "post-racial" America we live in, if you shoot and kill an unarmed person of color who is not on your property, and is not threatening you with violence, you don't even see a trial as long as you're not African-American. If you're African-American, even if that person is on your property and threatening your son, and you shoot a white person, you're not only going to trial, you're getting convicted of manslaughter.

Officer Kripke, I'm Very Upset

After reading Kripke's "Naming and Necessity" I had issues with his metaphysical argument. Now, after reading "A Puzzle About Belief" I think the man is insane.

His "great" puzzle is as follows:

A French man named Pierre is shown a post-card of London, or as he calls it, "Londres." Pierre knows absolutely nothing about Londres except what he's seen in this post-card. After seeing the post-card, Pierre asserts 'Londres is pretty.' Then, through the magic of philosophical thought-experiments, Pierre is teleported to a shabby neighborhood in London. He has no idea that he now resides in Londres. Nobody there speaks French, so he has to eventually pick up on some English from them. Eventually, he knows enough English to assert that, looking at his run-down neighborhood, 'London is not pretty.' Keep in mind that he has no idea that Londres is London. Again, suspension of disbelief is a necessary part of philosophical thought-experiments.

So, since Londres is London, this means that Pierre simultaneously holds the view that 'London is pretty' and 'London is not pretty.' These are logically contradictory, hence the puzzle.

The problem I have with it is that it assumes that there is some static and monolithic 'London' that Pierre is speaking of in both instances. I do not agree with him. Despite using two words, 'London' and 'Londres', that translate to the same exact word, there is a hidden meaning to both assertions that are quite different. Each statement is induced by sense experience that Pierre undergoes, and those sense experiences are quite different. What Pierre is really saying when he asserts that 'Londres is pretty' after seeing the post-card is, 'The thing which I am looking at is pretty, and I am told that the thing I am looking at is called 'Londres.'' When Pierre is living in the shabby neighborhood, he is really asserting, 'The place in which I reside is not pretty, and I am told that it goes by the name of 'London.'' Not the same assertion at all. In neither instance can Pierre say something about the whole of London. He can only speak to what he knows of London, and since both instances have very different perspectives on London, his two assertions simply cannot be only affirmation and negation of the same thing. He is not seeing the thing as a whole thing, nor can he ever know the absolute whole of London.

To use an analogous example, on my campus of University of Cincinnati, there is a men's bathroom in Swift Hall that is very ugly. It has numerous penises drawn on it, foul hateful messages written on the wall, and (I think) is embarrassing for a place of higher learning. If I were teleported into that bathroom, knowing nothing else about the campus, I would likely assert, 'The UC campus is not pretty.' Now, that is not the case. In reality, I have walked all over the campus and seen the many (I think) beautiful buildings and aesthetically pleasing interiors, and the incredibly attractive student body. So, if somebody would ask me what the campus looks like, I would easily assert 'The UC campus is pretty.' However, that statement is unqualified and thus implies that it speaks to the whole without exception. I know that the men's bathroom in Swift Hall is not pretty, and is in fact disgusting. So, how can I assert that the whole of the campus is pretty when I know that there is at least one part that is the exception to that statement? Because, when I say, 'The UC campus is pretty.' I am not actually asserting the strict meaning of those words. I am using short-hand, because perhaps I am pressed for time, or I simply do not want to explain. If a person overheard my assertion and decided to correct me by mentioning the bathroom in Swift Hall, I would be able to unpack my assertion with something like, 'Yes, that bathroom is foul, but what I meant is that the campus is for the most part pretty.' I cannot actually ever really say with veracity that 'The UC campus is pretty.' without qualification because I will never see every part of it. I won't see the vast majority of professor's offices, women's bathrooms, employee-only areas, maintenance tunnels, dorm rooms, etc. But, for sanity's sake, we allow each other to speak of the whole despite not knowing the whole. I'm not even capable of fully articulating my belief on the UC campus. I mean, if I were a robot, as I suspect many analytic philosophers are, I would have to say something like, 'Of the areas of The UC campus that I have witnessed, 63% of it was beautiful, 24% of it was unremarkable, and 23% was unpleasant to look at.' That is absurd and impossible for a human (non-analytic robot) mind to produce.

So, when Pierre asserts that 'Londres is pretty' he is not actually asserting that, unqualified. And when he asserts that 'London is pretty' he is not actually asserting that. He cannot assert either of those. He can only really assert what he knows at this given time, of this object, from this vantage point. He is not speaking as some logic robot, so his two statements are not about identical objects and are thus not contradictory to each other.

Be Like Mike (Frazier)

On Tuesday, my classmate Michael Frazier gave an excellent presentation on rap music. Even as a fan, I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know about the structure that goes into a rap song. I have run into a lot of people, primarily sheltered white folks, that think that rap isn't music, or that it takes no talent. Michael's presentation dispelled all of that, and I'm glad to see that sort of presentation welcomed in an academic setting. It reminded me of some of the hip-hop artists I love, like Kanye West.

I am nearly obsessed with Kanye West, and rarely meet anybody else that appreciates him. A lot of that probably has to do with how boastful he is, and stunts like interrupting Taylor Swift, but I don't care about all of that. In fact, all of that makes me like him more. Hip-hop is a genre of braggadocio, and on some level I feel that this is a way for black men, who have traditionally been put down in American society, to find some pride and self-esteem. I also feel like Kanye has earned it by being one of the most talented producers and rhymers around. I mean, who else comes up with stuff like, "I'm a fly Malcolm X, buy any jeans necessary" or "You got too many Urkels on your team, that's why your Winslow."? Nobody, except maybe his sensei, Jay-Z.

I also feel that Kanye sees the conflict in his wealth. He's the son of a college professor, his late mother, and feels the pull from his upbringing to be intelligent and thoughtful, while simultaneously feeling the pull from culture to be materialistic and flaunt his wealth. He seems to understand this flawed nature of his when he says, "To whom much is given, much is tested / Get arrested, guess until he gets the message / I feel the pressure, under more scrutiny / and what do I do? Act more stupidly / Bought more jewelry, more Louis V, my momma couldn't get through to me." Kanye West is like a modern day, real-life Jay Gatsby, and screw any pretentious white folks that balk at comparing him to a lofty literary character.

Sociological Dramaturgy

Our discussion on Thursday was one of my favorites from the class. Discussing how we change our language for different situations fascinates me because in this hyperindividualistic culture, people can't stand to think that they aren't themselves at all times. But we all do it.

Sociologist Erving Goffman called this "sociological dramaturgy." He proposed that we have two selfs, the front-stage self and the backstage self. Front-stage self is the "nice face" we put on for coworkers, our boss, neighbors, and the like. The backstage self is how we act at home when around only intimate friends and family. Some people call this "being fake," but with it being completely unavoidable, I'm not sure if that matters.

Spentropy

After reading Thomas Pynchon's "Entropy", it followed me around. I was walking to my math tutoring session in the Sinclair library, and passed by the reproductions of documents from the founding of the United States, primarily the Constitution. Then I passed by the African tribal art that is in the glass cases in the library. I was reminded of all the lengths curators have gone to preserve the actual physical Constitution in the National Archives in Washington D.C. It is kept out of sunlight, because UV rays will cause it to fade. It was encased in helium, and now in argon to preserve the parchment. Despite all of this, there is nothing we can do to keep it from deteriorating forever.

The famous Percy Bysshe Shelley poem "Ozymandias" talks about a statue of the Egyptian king that has crumbled and ironically says at the bottom, "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" This strong statue made of stone couldn't survive the elements, which eroded it away. The whole of art preservation seems to be a field of resisting change, of fighting against entropy. In a way it seems like a noble, though ultimately fruitless, battle.

God damn Thomas Pynchon is depressing.

A Nameless Dread

This week I finished Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho. It features a rich wall street executive losing his mind and killing numerous people in vicious and sexual manners. It is not for those with weak stomachs to say the least. Some passages seriously made me feel disturbed like some sort of sympathy pain, except sympathy psychosis.

I am a bit lost after reading it. I get that it is a bit of satire about the superficial lives of the rich, with quotes like, "There wasn't a clear, identifiable emotion within me, except for greed and, possibly, total disgust." But on some level I still feel that Ellis has some pity for the main character, Patrick Bateman. You can't write 300 pages about the inner monologue of a character without identifying with that character on some level, which makes the satirical elements a bit problematic. There are also long passages where Bateman describes what everybody is wearing, focusing primarily on designer names, which, while incredibly tedious to read, serves to highlight how these characters only care about the surface. But, to write these passages, Ellis had to know a great deal about designer clothing, and this means he has to operate in that circle to some degree.

Another issue with the book is that there is a lot of homophobia and misogyny. This is further puzzling since Ellis himself is bisexual, and leans mostly towards homosexuality from what I've read about him. And one might argue that this is a continuation of the satire, mocking the hypermasculinity of these wall street types. But at some point you cannot hide behind satire anymore. At some point, you're producing so much homophobia and misogyny, that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that you don't harbor some of those sentiments yourself.

My name is Nathaniel, and I have read Sparknotes

Sparknotes is a website where sports medicine majors go to read short summaries of literature and character analyses so they can plagiarize the site in hopes of getting a C from a lazy teacher's assistant or something of the sort. All of my academia friends speak of websites like sparknotes with vile hatred, and I can understand since their whole purpose is to make it possible for lazy students to not have to dig on their own through stories.

However, I read it frequently for a lot of my readings in many classes. Not as a replacement for reading the actual work, but as kindling to start my criticism. The problem for me is I don't really know how to do criticism. I am a kid hammering on a piano with no training. I'm no dummy, so I can sometimes find something melodic and go with it, but it's amateur at best. So sparknotes is like Fisher Price my-first-literary-criticism.

I bring this up because, after reading Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find," I was madly in love with the story, but wasn't able to articulate exactly what was going on under the surface of the story. I sensed religious tones, regionalism, and characters that were more complex than "hero" and "villain," but I just couldn't figure it out. The Misfit and the grandmother's dialogue with each other at the end intrigued me, but I didn't know why.

So I went to sparknotes, and read up on it. And what I read about The Misfit was the most interesting because I completely disagreed with sparknotes.

"He has carefully considered his actions in life and examined his experiences to find lessons within them. He has even renamed himself because of one of these lessons, believing that his punishment didn’t fit his crime. Because the Misfit has questioned himself and his life so closely, he reveals a self-awareness that the grandmother lacks...The Misfit’s philosophies may be depraved, but they are consistent. Unlike the grandmother, whose moral code falls apart the moment it’s challenged, the Misfit has a steady view of life and acts according to what he believes is right."

I think they miss the mark saying that The Misfit is consistent. While he is more analytical than the grandmother and her family, there is something within him that isn't satisfied with his philosophy. His cool amoral attitude is challenged by the grandmother, and he cracks. When she talks to him about Jesus, The Misfit, who establishes himself as not one of the faithful, becomes upset about his lack of certainty.

"I wasn't there so I can't say He didn't," The Misfit said. "I wisht I had of been there," he said, hitting the ground with his fist. "It ain't right I wasn't there because if I had of been there I would of known. Listen lady," he said in a high voice, "if I had of been there I would of known and I wouldn't be like I am now." His voice seemed about to crack...

The Misfit obviously isn't so sure about his philosophy of "no pleasure but meanness." When he kills the grandmother immediately after, it seems like a different sort of murder for him. It isn't part of his iconoclastic revenge against society, killing these people that he felt were part of the system that punished him unfairly. He killed the grandmother because she recognized him. She knew who he was, not just him being The Misfit, but who he was to the core of his being, and it scared him.

So, I highly recommend visiting Sparknotes. And then tearing their crappy criticism apart with your own observations about the text.