I have a diary in me about narcissism, it really is the original sin and the one that all others flow from. But I'm not sure if that completely explains the attitudes I'm talking about here.

Trav, I think you nailed it when you said people no longer accept that they have to die.

Part of it is changing religious beliefs. On the one hand, religion offered an afterlife, and 100 years ago most people appear to have believed in it quite literally.  I suspect the majority of people these days, even if they belong to a church, aren't banking on it.   On the other hand,  religion also sent kids to bed praying "If I die before I wake..." every night.  There were constant reminders that it's coming but tempered with the nice story to make it easier to take.

Both religion and social codes (code of chivalry, Code Duello, etc) taught that there were principles more important than life. There were few people who would have signed onto the idea that words can never justify a blow,  or that the honor of you and your family/gang/tribe aren't worth fighting over.  Today those two ideas are the basis of every school's disciplinary code.

Along with that there was the concept of "acts of God" and "time and chance happen to all".   Today we tend to think that every event has a cause, including death, and those causes could have and should have been avoided if everyone had just been more careful and responsible.

So, you've got one life with no second chances, there's nothing more important than that life, and it's ended by a death that (we think) could have been avoided if you'd just eaten the right food, or had a few more inches of crumple zone of the car, or exercised more. or gone to right specialist, or been more suspicious of people. Given all that, what do you expect?

fewer people watch the news than ever before (at least since TV became widespread). More and more people get their news online. I think TV is a contributing factor, maybe even a major one, but I don't think it's the whole story.

It's hard to see how people are more helpless now than they were in the early 1960s. Do you mean that we're more interconnected/codependent? I.e. almost nobody knows how to butcher their own meat anymore? Almost nobody knows how to pour concrete, or garden for subsistence, etc?

is that I don't think there was a shortage of incompetence or malice at any time in history. Helplessness and loss of control (or at least the feeling of loss of control) is a symptom, not a cause.

I think you are on to something. It's not a matter of crime, which is only sympomatic at best, but the pervasive feeling in society of loss of control and helplessness.  But this leads to something worse than fear, which in its place and can be a positive reaction. It leads to depression, which is never a healthy state of mind.

I think the concept is a maddeningly difficult one; one that can't easily be pinned down. I think I can sum it up by an increasing isolation caused by TV, yes, but also the internet, consumerism and car culture, and the breakdown of religious, community and family life. People need to feel a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves, and without this they become easy prey of those who would exploit this need.  

Amazingly enough, the left is using this tragedy (and the catchphrase "white Hispanic", which is an oh so clever attempt to avoid offending Hispanic voter while pandering to gun grabbers and Al Sharpton) to try to attack a law that has been working well and which--as you point out--has little or no connection to this incident.

second, while the "stand your ground" laws might not have been meant to apply to a situation like this, they in fact are because now the burden of proof is on the cops to show that a shooter didn't have a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm. With no witnesses that's very difficult, even if Martin was alive it would have been his word against Zimmerman's. So as interpreted by the courts and the cops these laws do affect these situations, as seen in the tripling of "justifiable homicides" in FLA since the law was passed.

Third, it is amazing to me that conservatives don't see a huge expansion of the national security state with it's virtually unlimited spying on its own citizens as a loss of freedom. Not to mention many of the conservative applauded limitations on the 4th amendment, voting rights, etc. Your suggestion that conservatives don't view all government is evil is laughable.

...(former player of the Broncos, that IIRC was a lineman for them in Tecmo Super Bowl)."

A. I don't recall that parents with fewer kids acted differently 30 or 40 years ago.

B. I think this ties into the misapprehension of actual probabilities, could be true but I find it hard to believe that only the change in news coverage is responsible. News is more sensationalistic now but it's not like local crime wasn't covered when I was a kid.

C. I lived through the spike in crime, it made no difference at the time and it's not like it wasn't reported back then.

D. May be true, but I see it in my upscale neighborhood as well.

Specifically on C, I remember stories about razor blades in apples and rat poison in candy at Halloween, but the difference back then is that it was kids spreading the stories and adults who told us to stop being idiots. Now it seems like the adults take it more seriously than the kids do.

.

....like a great spot to demonstrate Obama's shiftiness and good working relationship with that pig Putin. Maybe he looked into his eyes or something. :^). AnywY, I'm always in favor of anything that embarrasses a progressive pol....

n/t

. . .anything that comes out of Spike Lee's mouth (or portable internet access device) deserves what they get--including a ballistic response if they decide to play "angry, violent mob" outside of some innocent--but armed--citizen's residence.

what does a Vietnam vet know about killing anyway? You should listen to the internet tough guys who are always telling us that some people need killing even if they weren't doing anything in this particular instance.

There's been a lot of smoke and not much light. this video from ABC seems to disprove the story that Zimmerman was assaulted. Having worked around cops for a number of years now, I guarantee that if there had been the slightest suggestion of blood anywhere on Mr. Zimmerman, every officer within a two-meter radius of the guy would have been wearing gloves. The decision not to press charges (or at least send the case to the grand jury) suggests gross incompetence on somebody's part at best, and malice at worst.

He assumes one of the two narratives, M or Z, must be correct. There are several other possible narratives, including...Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, but lied about being unable to retreat...or Zimmerman provoked Martin, made Martin fear he was in danger of being attacked. Those other narratives would certainly invoke Florida statutes, and I'm sure the grand jury & DOJ will look into them.

Kopel also glosses over a big exception to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which states that the justification does not apply to an individual who

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

An obvious prosecutor's narrative could be that Martin, shadowed by this big, tough-looking dude who doesn't identify himself, believes he is about to get jumped, and so defends himself. If all you know is that you're in a medium-crime area, and a muscular guy in a big black SUV is tailing you, then gets out to demand what the hell you're doing around here...you assume you're about to get assaulted.

Kopel waves away this possibility saying that the statute implies Zimmerman would have had to attack Martin first. He may be right, and that's how the statute is interpreted...but it doesn't read that way to me. Anyhow, his dismissal is flawed by his failure to consider whether both narratives might be wrong.

Very interesting new details in comments though, including details from the arrest report, and Zimmerman's prior arrests.

be careful what you ask for.